Kardon v. National Gypsum Co.

83 F. Supp. 613, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3071
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania·Decided September 15, 1947·No. Civ. A. 6203·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge.

The plaintiffs have presented one, and the defendants two, requests for additional findings of fact. The defendants’ requests are merely amplifications of certain findings of fact contained in the opinion and are in nowise in conflict with those findings. All three requests are affirmed.

The defendants’ requests- for an additional conclusion of law is denied.

The following additional conclusion of law is made:

The plaintiffs are not barred from recovery by the two agreements of April 6, 1946.

Comment: As pointed out in the opinion, the Act is violated when directors with inside information purchase stock without full disclosure. Such conduct constitutes engaging in an “act, practice, or course of business which * * * would operate as a fraud.” The plaintiffs’ case could be sustained had no representations of any kind as to pending negotiations been made at the meeting at which the sale was consummated. However, it has been found as a fact that such representations were made. Concededly, the 'subsequent agreement of April 6 cannot as matter of law, by virtue of the parol evidence rule,- exculpate the defendants. It may properly be (and has been) considered as evidentiary upon the fact question whether the representations as to the absence of pending negotiations were relied upon by the Kardons in parting with their stock. It does not move me to change my view that the representations were relied upon, although the result would be the same if they had not been. The whole question was presented in substance, though in a different guise, when the question of waiver was pressed at the original argument.

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

Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., 83 F. Supp. 613, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3071 (E.D. Pa. 1947).

83 F. Supp. 613 (Kardon v. National Gypsum Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bradley v. Hullander
249 S.E.2d 486 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1978)
Morris v. Cantor
390 F. Supp. 817 (S.D. New York, 1975)
Allen Organ Co. v. North American Rockwell Corp.
363 F. Supp. 1117 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1973)
Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. Fielding
316 F. Supp. 82 (D. Nevada, 1970)
Frantz Manufacturing Co. v. Phenix Manufacturing Co.
314 F. Supp. 99 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1970)
Gerstle v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc.
298 F. Supp. 66 (E.D. New York, 1969)
Twomey v. Mitchum, Jones & Templeton, Inc.
262 Cal. App. 2d 690 (California Court of Appeal, 1968)
Lorenz v. Watson
258 F. Supp. 724 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1966)
John B. Janigan v. Frederick B. Taylor
344 F.2d 781 (First Circuit, 1965)
Crist v. United Underwriters, Ltd.
343 F.2d 902 (Tenth Circuit, 1965)
List v. Fashion Park, Inc.
340 F.2d 457 (Second Circuit, 1965)
Cooper v. North Jersey Trust Company of Ridgewood, NJ
226 F. Supp. 972 (S.D. New York, 1964)