Else Willheim and Randolph Phillips v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc., and Investors Mutual, Inc.

303 F.2d 276, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5057
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedMay 18, 1962
Docket364, Docket 27514
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 303 F.2d 276 (Else Willheim and Randolph Phillips v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc., and Investors Mutual, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Else Willheim and Randolph Phillips v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc., and Investors Mutual, Inc., 303 F.2d 276, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5057 (2d Cir. 1962).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case presents substantial issues of fact and law which must be resolved before there can be final adjudication that the investment advisory and underwriting service contracts between the two defendants-appellees have been abrogated by a transfer of stock control as provided in §§ 2(a)(4), 15(a)(4), and (b) (2) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. §§ 80a-2(a) (4), 80a-15(a)(4), and (b)(2). It seems clear that neither plaintiffs nor the corporation they assume to represent will suffer irreparable injury by delay in achieving their goal until after trial on the merits, while the corporate affairs will be placed in chaotic state by the sudden termination of the service contracts as sought. A preliminary injunction should be directed toward preserving the status quo, so far as possible, in order that ultimate adjudication may come on a complete record after a full trial which resolves the now disputed issues. We think that end will be best achieved here by withholding the injunction at this time. Foundry Services, Inc. v. Beneflux Corp., 2 Cir., 206 F.2d 214, 216. It should be understood that we now make no determination as to the interpretation and application of the governing statutory provision or choice between the restrictive view advanced by Judge Dawson on the one hand, Willheim v. Murchison, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 203 F.Supp. 478, or the broader construction supported by the plaintiffs and the Securities and Exchange Commission as amicus curiae on the other.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Tropic Film Corp. v. Paramount Pictures Corp.
319 F. Supp. 1247 (S.D. New York, 1970)
601 West 26 Corp. v. Solitron Devices, Inc.
420 F.2d 293 (Second Circuit, 1969)
No. 592
420 F.2d 293 (Second Circuit, 1969)
601 WEST 26 CORP. v. Solitron Devices, Inc.
291 F. Supp. 882 (S.D. New York, 1968)
Vanguard Recording Society, Inc. v. Kweskin
276 F. Supp. 563 (S.D. New York, 1967)
Fanning v. United Scenic Artists, Local 829
265 F. Supp. 523 (S.D. New York, 1966)
Willheim v. Murchison
342 F.2d 33 (Second Circuit, 1965)
G. P. Putnam's Sons v. Lancer Books, Inc.
239 F. Supp. 782 (S.D. New York, 1965)
Willheim v. Murchison
206 F. Supp. 733 (S.D. New York, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
303 F.2d 276, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/else-willheim-and-randolph-phillips-v-investors-diversified-services-ca2-1962.