Epstein v. Solitron Devices, Inc.

Second Circuit

Epstein v. Solitron Devices, Inc.

388 F.2d 310

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 11, 1968

DocketNo. 263, Docket 31119

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 388 F.2d 310 (Epstein v. Solitron Devices, 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

Epstein v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 388 F.2d 310 (2d Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We affirm in open court the order of the Southern District denying a motion by Order to Show Cause by Solitron Devices, Inc., for an order directing plaintiff in a stockholder derivative action alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to post security for expenses pursuant to Section 627 of the New York Business Corporation Law, McKinneys’s Consol.Laws, c. 4, for the reasons stated in Judge Bonsai’s opinion. Weitzen v. Kearns, 262 F.Supp. 931 (S.D.N.Y.1966).

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

PER CURIAM:

We affirm in open court the order of the Southern District denying a motion by Order to Show Cause by Solitron Devices, Inc., for an order directing plaintiff in a stockholder derivative action alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to post security for expenses pursuant to Section 627 of the New York Business Corporation Law, McKinneys’s Consol.Laws, c. 4, for the reasons stated in Judge Bonsai’s opinion. Weitzen v. Kearns, 262 F.Supp. 931 (S.D.N.Y.1966).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

388 F.2d 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/epstein-v-solitron-devices-inc-ca2-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack