From our private database of 14,200+ case briefs...
Meyerhofer v. Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
497 F.2d 1190 (1974)
The law firm of Sitomer & Porges (Sitomer firm) (defendant) provided legal representation to Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company (Empire) (defendant) in order for Empire’s stock to be sold publically. A Sitomer attorney, Stuart Charles Goldberg, assisted Empire during various phases of the stock registration process. After the Sitomer firm rejected Goldberg’s concern regarding information that was not disclosed in Empire’s registration document, Goldberg resigned. The same day, Goldberg delivered a sworn affidavit regarding the knowledge he had to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The law firm of Bernson, Hoeniger, Freitag & Abbey (Bernson firm) represented Dietrich Meyerhofer (plaintiff), Herbert Federman (plaintiff), and others who had lost money after purchasing Empire stock and filed suit on their behalf in federal district court against Empire, the Sitomer firm, and others. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the Empire stock had been issued under false and misleading terms in violation of the federal Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and state law. Later, Goldberg learned by telephone that he was a defendant and met with Bernson firm members to demonstrate that he lacked knowledge of any wrongdoing. Additionally, Goldberg provided Bernson with an affidavit similar to the one provided to the SEC. Included in the affidavit was detailed information concerning how the firm covered up the non-disclosure of specific information. Bernson removed Goldberg as a defendant. After receipt of Goldberg’s affidavit, Bernson amended its complaint to add more specific facts but did not change the theory or substance of the claims. Defendants filed a motion to disqualify the entire Bernson firm from further representing plaintiffs. The district court granted defendants’ motion and barred the Bernson firm and Goldberg from further representation of plaintiffs. The court also dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice. Bernson and plaintiffs’ appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 240,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,200 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.