We hold that a bona fide purchaser, acquiring, with knowledge that the wrong remains unremedied, the employing enterprise which was the locus of the unfair labor practice, may be considered in privity with its predecessor for purposes of Rule 65 (d).

There is some authority supporting the view that an independent purchaser of land who takes with knowledge of an outstanding injunction against its use in a particular manner may be regarded as such an aider and abettor.

Even without the term "agents" an attempt to evade the order by the formation or utilization of the corporate form would, under familiar principles permitting disregard of the corporate fiction, be ineffectual.

I think not persuasive, none of the cases cited by the Board to support the inclusion of the terms "successors and assigns" in the order holds that such inclusion is proper.[47]

The court in Dean Rubber stated further that "[o] nly persons who are parties to an injunctive decree, or in privity with thoso whose rights have been adjudicated thereby are bound by a personam decree."

[CITATION] American Law of Mining

[CITATION] Cases and materials on equitable remedies, restitution and damages

[CITATION] Labor & ERISA Law: In and Out of the Bankruptcy Courts

[CITATION] Modern judicial remedies: cases and materials