SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. Federal Shopping Way, Inc.

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
Writing for the CourtJERTBERG, WRIGHT and KILKENNY, Circuit
CitationSECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. Federal Shopping Way, Inc., 433 F.2d 148 (9th Cir. 1970)
Decision Date03 November 1970
Docket NumberNo. 25006.,25006.
PartiesSECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FEDERAL SHOPPING WAY, INC., a Washington corporation, and J. R. Cissna, Defendants-Appellants.

J. R. Cissna and Frank W. Payne, Federal Way, Wash., for defendants-appellants.

Frederick Paul, Lisle R. Guernsey, Daniel Brink, Donald J. Beighle, Russell J. Reid and J. Bookey, Seattle, Wash., James E. Newton, John N. Fegan, S. E. C., Seattle, Wash., Phillip Loomis, Jr., Gen. Counsel, David Ferber, Sol., Frank E. Kennamer, Jr., Asst. Gen. Counsel, Paul Gonson, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Warren G. Stolusky and Stuart A. Morse, Attys., S. E. C., Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before JERTBERG, WRIGHT and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On September 13, 1967, two months prior to the filing of the involuntary Chapter X proceedings involved in Federal Shopping Way, Inc., 433 F.2d 144 (9th Cir., September 28, 1970), the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint charging appellants, Federal Shopping Way, Inc. and its chief executive officer, J. R. Cissna, with violating the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933. The charges grew out of the sale of fractional undivided interests in land known as "Recre-Plex," located adjacent to the shopping center in Federal Way, Washington. The complaint sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary and permanent injunction, and the appointment of a receiver pendente lite.

A temporary restraining order was issued on the following day. On October 13, 1967, after seven days of hearings, an order was entered granting a preliminary injunction and appointing a receiver. A decree of permanent injunction was granted on August 6, 1969, following a nine-day trial on the merits.1 It is this decree which is the subject matter of this appeal.

Appellants contend: (1) that fractional undivided interests in real estate are not securities as defined in § 2(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77b(1); (2) that the district court's conclusion that appellants "engaged in a course of conduct in the offer and sale of securities in the form of Recre-Plex units which has constituted a gross fraud and deceit upon investors," in violation of § 17(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), is clearly erroneous; and (3) that appellants were denied due process.

As to the first two contentions, we have examined the record,...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 cases
  • In re Federal Shopping Way, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • November 16, 1970
    ...of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a). The result of the latter litigation is the subject of a companion appeal, S.E.C. v. Federal Shopping Way, Inc., 433 F.2d 148 (9th Cir. September 28, 1970). The debtor was incorporated under the laws of the State of Washington on May 24, 1955. Since that time its......
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Real Property Deskbook Series Volume 4: Causes of Action, Taxation, Regulation (WSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...(2006): 14.2(3)(c)(iii) Sea Harvest Corp. v. Riviera Land Co., 868 F.2d 1077 (9th Cir. 1989): 14.6(3) S.E.C. v. Fed. Shopping Way, Inc., 433 F.2d 148 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam): 15.3(1) S.E.C. v. Glenn W. Turner Enters., Inc., 474 F.2d 476 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821 (1973): 15......
  • §15.3 - Specific Applications of the Definition of Security to Real Estate Transactions
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Real Property Deskbook Series Volume 4: Causes of Action, Taxation, Regulation (WSBA) Chapter 15 Securities Regulation of Real Estate Transactions
    • Invalid date
    ...estate, the transaction will involve a security if all elements of the Howey test are satisfied. See S.E.C. v. Fed. Shopping Way, Inc., 433 F.2d 148 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam); Cook v. Farrell, [1975-1976 TRANSFER BINDER] FED. SEC. L. REP. (CCH) ¶95,337 (N.D.Ga. 1975); In re Los Angeles L......