UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
April 23, 2007
CARLA WOODS AND JEFFERY GOLDBERG, AS STOCKHOLDERS' REPRESENTATIVE AND TRUSTEES OF THE BIONICS TRUST, PLAINTIFF,
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Alvin K. Hellerstein, U.S.D.J.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER EXPLAINING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND SEVERING COUNT THREE OF THE COMPLAINT
On April 17, 2007, the parties appeared before me for oral argument on whether, in light of my ruling on March 9, 2007 that there were no further material and relevant triable issues of fact, the preliminary injunction dated February 20, 2007 should be converted into a permanent injunction. Plaintiffs and Defendant had no further objections and, for the reasons stated on the record, I ordered that a permanent injunction would issue.
Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the "giving of security by the applicant" before a restraining order and a preliminary injunction may issue, but there is no similar requirement in connection with a permanent injunction. The typical haste and limited record surrounding a hearing on preliminary orders provides the need to protect parties wrongfully enjoined or restrained. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c); Ty, Inc. v. Publ'n Int'l Ltd., 292 F.3d 512, 516 (7th Cir. 2002) (noting, in dictum, that security is "required only for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction . . . not for a permanent injunction"). My discussion with the parties at the April 17 argument, therefore, was academic. Security will not be required in connection with the permanent injunction.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.