Globus v. Law Research Service, Inc.

Second Circuit

Globus v. Law Research Service, Inc.

442 F.2d 1346, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9591

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 14, 1971

DocketNo. 861, Docket 35645

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 442 F.2d 1346 (Globus v. Law Research Service, 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

Globus v. Law Research Service, Inc., 442 F.2d 1346, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9591 (2d Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We affirmed in open court Judge Marvin E. Frankel’s award to Blair & Co., Granbery, Marache, Inc. (Blair) of contribution in the amount of one-third each from Law Research Service, Inc. (LRS) and Ellias C. Hoppenfeld (Hop-penfeld), Blair’s co-defendants in an earlier stage of these proceedings.

In Globus v. Law Research Service, Inc., 418 F.2d 1276 (1969), we affirmed a judgment entered against Blair, LRS, and Hoppenfeld for their joint and several liability pursuant to § 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a) and § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S. C. 78j(b) for failing to disclose material facts in connection with a public offering of the stock of LRS. 287 F.Supp. 188 (D.C.1968). Blair subsequently satisfied the judgment and by a motion in the district court sought to compel LRS and Hoppenfeld to pay their pro-rata shares of the judgment.

Judge Frankel awarded contribution. We agree with both his result and reasoning and affirm the judgment on the basis of his opinion, reported at 318 F. Supp. 955 (1970).

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

PER CURIAM:

We affirmed in open court Judge Marvin E. Frankel’s award to Blair & Co., Granbery, Marache, Inc. (Blair) of contribution in the amount of one-third each from Law Research Service, Inc. (LRS) and Ellias C. Hoppenfeld (Hop-penfeld), Blair’s co-defendants in an earlier stage of these proceedings.

In Globus v. Law Research Service, Inc., 418 F.2d 1276 (1969), we affirmed a judgment entered against Blair, LRS, and Hoppenfeld for their joint and several liability pursuant to § 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a) and § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S. C. 78j(b) for failing to disclose material facts in connection with a public offering of the stock of LRS. 287 F.Supp. 188 (D.C.1968). Blair subsequently satisfied the judgment and by a motion in the district court sought to compel LRS and Hoppenfeld to pay their pro-rata shares of the judgment.

Judge Frankel awarded contribution. We agree with both his result and reasoning and affirm the judgment on the basis of his opinion, reported at 318 F. Supp. 955 (1970).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 F.2d 1346, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/globus-v-law-research-service-inc-ca2-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack