Nathan Epstein, Under a Power of Trust for the Benefit of Allen Lee Epstein, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Solitron Devices, Inc., Defendant-appellant, Andwilliam Kearns et al., Defendants, 388 F.2d 310 (2d Cir. 1968)
Annotate this CaseDecided January 11, 1968
Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Dudley B. Bonsal, J., denying defendant corporation's motion for an order directing plaintiff in a stockholder derivative action alleging a violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to post security for expenses pursuant to state law.
Jerome J. Londin, New York City (Carro, Spanbock & Londin, Holtzmann, Wise & Shepard, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.
Stanley L. Kaufman, New York City (Kaufman, Taylor, Kimmel & Miller, Shephard S. Miller, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and SMITH and HAYS, Circuit Judges.
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 Bonsal's opinion. Weitzen v. Kearns, 262 F. Supp. 931 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
