Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BERKWICH v. MENCHER

March 17, 1965

Berthold L. BERKWICH, Plaintiff,
v.
William H. MENCHER and the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, Defendants



The opinion of the court was delivered by: WYATT

This is a motion by plaintiff for summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.

The action is under Section 16(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78p(b).

 Plaintiff is a stockholder of defendant The Central Railroad of New Jersey ('Central'). The common stock of Central is 'registered on a national securities exchange' (15 U.S.C. § 78p(a)), the Philadelphia-Baltimore-Washington Exchange. At all relevant times defendant Mencher was a director of Central.

 Between December 21, 1962 and March 1, 1963 Mencher sold 11,200 shares of common stock of Central.

 Within six months from December 21, 1962 Mencher bought 11,200 shares of common stock of Central.

 The profit realized by Mencher from these sales and purchases was $ 16,792.51.

 The federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of actions such as this and venue may be laid in any district 'wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation occurred'. 15 U.S.C. § 78aa; Blau v. Mission Corp., 212 F.2d 77, 79 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 347 U.S. 1016, 74 S. Ct. 872, 98 L. Ed. 1138 (1954).

 As to all the purchases and sales, the broker for Mencher initiating the transactions was in this District; as to all sales by Mencher, the proceeds were remitted to his broker in this District; and all new certificates were issued by the transfer agent of Central in this District.

 In a proxy statement sent out in November 1963, Central advised its stockholders of sales and purchases by Mencher of Central stock, including all the purchases and sales involved in this action. Central gave the profit realized by Mencher as $ 16,647.51 (but on this motion the slightly higher figure of $ 16,792.51 as found above is not disputed). In the proxy statement, Central among other things said the following:

 'The Company believes that Dr. Mencher had no ulterior motive in making the purchases and sales in question and that, although he is liable to the Company under the provisions of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, he did not in fact abuse in any way his position as a Director of the Company and that while engaged in these transactions he was not using for his own benefit any confidential information with respect to the Company which he had obtained in his capacity as a Director. Accordingly, the Company does not propose to bring suit against Dr. Mencher under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.'

 This action was commenced on November 20, 1963. No request was made by plaintiff on Central as provided for in 15 U.S.C. § 78p(b) because the announced refusal of Central indicated to plaintiff that such a request would be futile.

 On December 17, 1963 Central filed its answer, having mailed a copy the day before to the counsel for plaintiff. The answer raised as a defense that there had been no demand on Central. At that point counsel for plaintiff told counsel for defendant that plaintiff would turn over the action to Central without counsel fee to plaintiff if Central would agree to prosecute the action. There was no response until in March 1964 when there were further talks between counsel. Apparently counsel for Central wanted to know whether, if Central took over the action, plaintiff would expect a counsel fee. He was told by counsel for plaintiff that an allowance for counsel fees would be sought from this Court. Thereupon counsel for Central told counsel for plaintiff that Central would not take over the action.

 Under date of March 26, 1964, plaintiff made a written demand on Central that it bring an action against Mencher, stating that plaintiff would do nothing during 'the statutory sixty days'. No action was in fact brought by Central.

 There is no issue as to any of the facts above set forth and they constitute sufficient material facts to permit this motion ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.