Cited by

These cases support the result we reach: Antonson v. Ekvall, 295 Minn. 558 , McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55 , Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296 , Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 245 Minn. 249 , Melady-Briggs Cattle Corp. v. Drovers State Bank, 213 Minn. 304

McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55 , Melady Briggs Cattle Corp. v. Drovers State Bank, 213 Minn. 304

There is no prevailing definition of privity which can be automatically applied, we wrote in McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 58 , so we must carefully examine the circumstance of each case.

In McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55 , 148 N. W. (2d) 804 , 30 A. L. R. (3d) 1078, we held that a determination by the Honorable Gunnar Nordbye in an action brought by the Securities Exchange Commission in Federal court 1 was not res judicata of the right to maintain this derivative action under Minnesota law.

In the launching of new electronic companies in 1960 and 1961, some of these directors, if not all, may have failed to recognize their inherent responsibilities as directors of an investment company, and therefore unwittingly placed themselves in situations which should have had approval of the Commission.” In the case of McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55 , 148 N. W. (2d) 804 , we held that the decision of the Federal court was not res judicata so as to bar a stockholder’s action against the offic