Myzel v. Fields

Decision Date04 March 1968
Docket NumberNo. 18341-18344.,18341-18344.
Citation386 F.2d 718
PartiesBenjamin (Benn) MYZEL et al., Appellants, v. Harry FIELDS, Appellee. Benjamin (Benn) MYZEL et al., Appellants, v. Samuel H. KING, Appellee. Benjamin (Benn) MYZEL et al., Appellants, v. Rita VERTELNEY, Special Administratrix, etc., Appellee. Benjamin (Benn) MYZEL et al., Appellants, v. Gordon M. COHEN, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Conrad M. Fredin, R. B. Reavill and John J. Killen, Jr., Duluth, Minn., for appellants, Arthur Karger, New York City, Daniel R. Kaplan, New York City, of counsel.

Lindquist, Magnuson & Glennon, Edward M. Glennon, William B. Stukas, Minneapolis, Minn., Leonard A. Wilson, Jr., Cloquet, Minn., for appellees.

Before MATTHES, MEHAFFY and LAY, Circuit Judges.

Certiorari Denied March 4, 1968. See 88 S.Ct. 1043.

LAY, Circuit Judge.

The four cases here considered are actions brought under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F. R. § 240.10b-5 (hereinafter Rule 10b-5), which implements Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S. C. § 78a et seq., arising out of the sale of stock of a closed corporation. Trial was held before a jury and jury verdicts totaling $411,000 were returned in favor of the plaintiffs.1 Honorable Earl Larson, the trial judge, overruled the defendants' motion for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The defendants have appealed. We affirm the verdicts and judgment below.

The basic issues are: (1) jurisdiction over intrastate sales, (2) sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdicts, (3) the liability of "controlling" persons and (4) the proper measure of damage.

I. JURISDICTION. Both Section 10 of the Act (15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)) and Rule 10b-5 require as a jurisdictional basis "the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange."

The evidence is undisputed that the telephone was used only on an intrastate basis in the solicitation or purchase of each of the appellees' stock. Appellees claim that federal jurisdiction exists because the telephone is an "instrumentality of interstate commerce" and, therefore, the cases fall within the prohibition of the statute. Despite reasoning to the contrary,2 we are convinced that Congress, in the interest of fairly regulating interstate commerce, intended to supervise those intrastate activities in violation of Rule 10b-5 which are "inimical to the welfare and public policy of the country as a whole." Nemitz v. Cunny, 221 F.Supp. 571, 574 (N.D.Ill.1963). We hold, consequently, that intrastate use of the telephone comes within prohibition of the Act. See also Bredehoeft v. Cornell, 260 F.Supp. 577 (D.Ore.1966); Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59 (N.D.Ohio 1964). In interpreting other grants of federal power, it has long been acknowledged that Congress may regulate intrastate activity if simultaneously it is an integral part of or constitutes an instrumentality of interstate commerce. Alstate Constr. Co. v. Durkin, 345 U.S. 13, 73 S.Ct. 565, 97 L.Ed. 745 (1953); Overstreet v. North Shore Corp., 318 U. S. 125, 63 S.Ct. 494, 87 L.Ed. 656 (1943); Pedersen v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co., 229 U.S. 146, 33 S.Ct. 648, 57 L.Ed. 1125 (1913). Thus, in order to protect interstate commerce, intrastate telephonic messages have been placd under the statutory prohibition pertaining to unauthorized publication or use of communications under 47 U.S.C. § 605. Weiss v. United States, 308 U.S. 321, 60 S.Ct. 269, 84 L.Ed. 298 (1939). We recognize that the telephone system and its voice transmission by wire is an integrated system of both intrastate and interstate commerce. Cf. Lipinski v. United States, 251 F.2d 53 (10 Cir. 1958). As such, proof of the interstate telephonic message is not a prerequisite to jurisdiction over a Section 10(b) action. As long as the instrumentality itself is an integral part of an interstate system, nothing in the Constitution requires Congress to exclude intrastate activities from its regulatory control. See Weiss v. United States, supra.

But there exists additional grounds to sustain jurisdiction. It is the rule that where any interstate use is made to perpetuate the original fraudulent concealment or transaction, even though not part of the original solicitation or inducement of sale involved, that nevertheless the subsequent use of interstate facilities in furthering the scheme is sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction.3 Creswell-Keith, Inc. v. Willingham, 264 F.2d 76, 80, 82 (8 Cir. 1959); see also Thomas v. United States, 227 F.2d 667, 670 (9 Cir. 1955) use of automobile; Ellis v. Carter, 291 F.2d 270, 274 (9 Cir. 1961) use of plane; cf. Boone v. Baugh, 308 F.2d 711 (8 Cir. 1962).

Appellees contended that they were fraudulently induced to sell their stock to the appellants, that the purchases were made by parties (the Myzels) other than the true buyers (the Levines) and that an Illinois corporation owned by some of the appellants was used as a conduit of concealment. The transfers of the stock to the Illinois corporation, although occurring several months and even years later, involved the delivery of checks written by the Illinois corporation on Chicago, Illinois banks to a Minnesota citizen. Cf. Little v. United States, 331 F.2d 287 (8 Cir. 1964). Thus, under appellees' theory, there was also sufficient evidence of interstate transactions to sustain jurisdiction.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. By reason of the jury verdict, and in view of defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we set forth from the conflicting evidence, the facts in the light most beneficial to the appellees. See, e. g. Breeding v. Massey, 378 F.2d 171 (8 Cir. 1967).

Lakeside Plastics and Engraving Co., hereinafter called "LPE," was organized in 1946 in Duluth, Minnesota, by cousins, Zelman and Clarence Levine. The company was organized as a small plastics corporation to make advertising signs. Upon its original issue there were 1,140 shares of common stock issued to some 17 persons, at a par value of $50 per share. Among the original purchasers were the appellee-plaintiffs, Harry Fields (30 shares), Joseph S. Vertelney (100 shares), Samuel H. King (30 shares), and Gordon M. Cohen (40 shares). In 1948, a sales agency, independent of LPE and entitled Lakeside Plastics Sales Co., hereinafter called "LPS," was organized in the State of Illinois by Orrin and William Levine, who were also original stockholders and directors of LPE from its inception. Both Orrin and William were brothers of Clarence Levine. From 1953 to sometime in 1957, the stock of LPE became totally vested in the hands of the four Levines and the Illinois corporation, LPS. By 1958, 640 shares of LPE were owned by LPS. At about that time, for a nominal consideration ($600 each), a one-fourth interest in LPS was sold to each of the Minnesota Levines. Then, in December 1961, the 640 shares of LPE were re-acquired by LPE as treasury stock, pursuant to a merger with LPS's wholly owned subsidiary, Lakeside Properties, Inc., hereinafter called "LPI," which had received the shares from LPS in July 1959. LPE then retired the 640 shares. The remaining 500 shares of LPE stock, then owned one-quarter each by the Levines, was in turn exchanged for 500,000 shares of a newly formed corporation called Lakeside Industries, Inc., hereinafter called "LII." In 1962, 150,000 shares of LII were offered to the public at $9 per share. The appellant-defendants herein are each of the four Levines, Benjamin Myzel, Philip Myzel and LII.

Philip (Phil) and Benjamin (Benn) Myzel, brothers and first cousins of Zelman Levine, were living in Duluth, Minnesota. The evidence shows that Benn Myzel was a close friend to each of the appellees. Benn was an early director of LPE, going off the board in 1949 and again assuming a directorship in 1954. According to the appellees, Benn Myzel originally solicited each of them to purchase stock in LPE, portraying it as an opportunity "to get in on the ground floor." Upon Benn's advice, each of the appellees made his purchase in 1946 of the shares in question at $50 par value.

For some time thereafter the growth of LPE was somewhat typical of any small, closely held corporation. From 1946 to 1951, the evidence showed a struggle for sales, a very marginal profit picture and a total lack of return to the appellee stockholders on their investment. Appellees, as well as other stockholders, expressed continued concern throughout this period as to the ultimate soundness of the investment involved. At the 1949 stockholders' meeting, appellee Fields even moved to dissolve the company in order to salvage a pro rata share of everyone's investment. LPE had an accumulated deficit in earned surplus at the end of 1951 of some $51,000. Sales in that year were $94,000. In 1952, the gross sales rose to some $249,000. This level had been reached before, in 1948. At the end of 1952, the profit was only $7,500 for the year, whereas the earned surplus deficit was still some $43,000. This 1952 financial picture was fully disclosed at a stockholders' meeting attended by some of the appellees in June of 1953. It was also known that in 1951 a large new contract was made with the Blatz Brewing Company for advertising signs. Each of the appellees, as well as the other stockholders, in order to secure a bank loan needed for the accomplishment of this contract, was required to pledge his stock.

In the first four months of 1953, principally because of the completion of the Blatz contract, the company showed a $30,000 profit and had nearly topped the total sales of the highest previous year. In the ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
312 cases
  • Trieweiler v. Sears, No. S-02-134
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • December 17, 2004
    ...while only those who have benefited are liable, and then only to the extent thereof, in an action for unjust enrichment. Myzel v. Fields, 386 F.2d 718 (8th Cir. 1967). This supports a conclusion that joint and several liability is inappropriate in relation to the equitable remedy of a const......
  • Gannett Co., Inc. v. Register Pub. Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • February 7, 1977
    .... . . Although the law does not favor a wrongdoer, neither does it promote speculative damages at his expense. Myzel v. Fields, 386 F.2d 718, 740-41 n.15 (8th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 951, 88 S.Ct. 1043, 19 L.Ed.2d 1143 (1968). "The securities laws contemplate no such investment g......
  • Smith v. Manausa, Civ. No. 1639.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Kentucky
    • November 22, 1974
    ...to delivery of the security. Dupler v. Simmons, D.Wyo., 163 F.Supp. 535, 540 (1958). Indeed, the Court in Myzel v. Fields, 8th Cir., 386 F.2d 718, 727-728 (1967), cert. denied 390 U.S. 951, 88 S.Ct. 1043, 19 L.Ed.2d 1143 (1968), held that the mere intrastate use of the telephone system conf......
  • Jaksich v. Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc., 81 Civ. 7675 (IBC).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • February 10, 1984
    ...who reasonably should already be aware of it." Seibert v. Sperry Rand Corp., 586 F.2d 949, 952 (2d Cir.1978), (quoting Myzel v. Fields, 386 F.2d 718, 736 (8th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 951, 88 S.Ct. 1043, 19 L.Ed.2d 1143 (1968)); Penham, supra, at 1296; Klamberg v. Roth, 473 F.Supp.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Let's be frank: the future direction of controlling person liability remains uncertain.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 46 No. 2, March 2013
    • March 22, 2013
    ...only some indirect means of discipline or influence short of actual direction to hold a 'controlling person' liable." Myzel v. Fields, 386 F.2d 718, 738 (8th Cir. 1967) (discussing manner in which 1934 Act section 20(a) should be construed); see also Metge, 762 F.2d at 630-31 (discussing tw......
  • Retroactive legislative history: scienter under the Uniform Security Litigation Standards Act of 1998.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 64 No. 1, September 2000
    • September 22, 2000
    ...Lanza v. Drexel & Co., 479 F.2d 1277, 1306 (2d Cir. 1973) (requiring "willful or reckless disregard for the truth"); Myzel v. Fields, 386 F.2d 718, 734-35 (8th Cir. 1967) (finding that "knowledge of the falseness of the impression produced by the statements or omissions made" is not a r......
  • Open the Floodgates: Ninth Circuit's Decision in Varjabedian Departs from Precedent and Gives Shareholders Free Reign.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 53 No. 1, January 2020
    • January 1, 2020
    ...Some courts previously held that Rule 10b-5 only required negligence, but the Supreme Court resolved that issue. Contra Myzel v. Fields, 386 F.2d 718, 734-35 (8th Cir. 1967) (holding scienter not required for Rule 10b-5 claim before Ernst & Ernst decision (14.) See SEC v. Ginsburg, 362 ......
  • Control Person Liability in Colorado
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 33-3, March 2004
    • Invalid date
    ...Gordon v. Burr, 506 F.2d 1080 (2d Cir. 1974). 30. Rochez Bros., Inc. v. Rhoades, 527 F.2d 880, 890 (3rd Cir. 1975). 31. Myzel v. Fields, 386 F.2d 718, 738 (8th Cir. 32. Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d 621, 631 (8th Cir. 1985). 33. Hollinger, 914 F.2d 1564 (9th Cir. 1990). 34. Id. at 1575. 35. Ma......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT