Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp.

• 1974 • 422 U.S. 49 • Burger Court
In Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that a federal court could not issue an injunction requiring a party to comply with Section 13(d) of the Williams Act, which mandates disclosure when acquiring more than five percent of a company's stock. The case involved James E. Rondeau, who had acquired over ten percent of Mosinee Paper Corporation’s shares without disclosing his holdings as required by law. When this was discovered, Mosinee sued for injunctive relief and damages...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1974
Docket: 74-415
422 U.S. 49
95 S. Ct. 2069
45 L. Ed. 2d 12
1975 U.S. LEXIS 142
Argued: Apr 15, 1975

Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that a federal court could not issue an injunction requiring a party to comply with Section 13(d) of the Williams Act, which mandates disclosure when acquiring more than five percent of a company's stock. The case involved James E. Rondeau, who had acquired over ten percent of Mosinee Paper Corporation’s shares without disclosing his holdings as required by law. When this was discovered, Mosinee sued for injunctive relief and damages under Section 18(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, alleging fraud in connection with purchase or sale of securities due to nondisclosure. The Supreme Court held that while it is true that Rondeau violated section 13(d), he did so only once and promptly corrected his mistake upon discovery; therefore no irreparable harm was done to warrant an injunction against him from further violations. Furthermore, they found no evidence supporting allegations made under Rule 10b-5 about fraudulent practices affecting public investors or causing injury to corporate assets or business reputation.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp., argued that the majority's decision was too narrow and failed to fully consider the broader implications of securities law violations. The dissent believed that a violation of Section 13(d) should be considered irreparable harm, warranting injunctive relief, even if there is no immediate threat to corporate control or policy changes. They contended that this section was designed not only to prevent secret takeovers but also to provide shareholders with information necessary for informed voting decisions. Therefore, any violation undermines shareholder democracy and constitutes an ongoing injury until corrected by full disclosure. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on balancing hardships between parties before granting injunctions in these cases; arguing it could potentially allow violators benefit from their wrongdoing while victims suffer without remedy.

Opinion written by Justice WEBurger
Decided: Jun 17, 1975
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms