Geo. H. McFadden & Bro., Inc. v. Home-Stake Production Co.
Decision Date | 30 December 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 68-C-40.,68-C-40. |
Parties | GEO. H. McFADDEN & BRO., INC., Plaintiff, v. HOME-STAKE PRODUCTION COMPANY, an Oklahoma corporation, Robert S. Trippet and Republic Supply Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma |
Houston, Klein & Davidson and Richard T. Sonberg, Tulsa, Okl., for plaintiff.
Pat Malloy and Thomas Landrith, Jr., Tulsa, Okl., for defendants Home-Stake Production Co. and Robert S. Trippet.
Sanders & McElroy, Tulsa, Okl., for defendant Republic Supply Co.
Defendant Republic Supply Company (Republic) and Defendants Home-Stake Production Company (Home-Stake) and Robert S. Trippet (Trippet) have filed Motions for Summary Judgment against the claims made herein by Plaintiff. The Republic Motion proceeds basically on the contention that there is no privity between it and Plaintiff, thus it cannot be charged with any violations of the SEC laws for which Home-Stake and Trippet may be responsible. The Home-Stake and Trippet Motion is based generally on the contention that Plaintiff's claims, both SEC based and other, are barred by the applicable statute of limitation. If there is any genuine, material issue of fact between the parties, these Motions cannot be granted.
The principle contention of fact with respect to Republic is that of its participation in the acts of Home-Stake and Trippet. Republic, in effect, argues that if there is no privity between it and Plaintiff in the transactions complained of, there is no right of action under the SEC laws. However, privity is not essential. 15 U.S.C.A. § 77q and Regulation 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission provide:
In this connection, Bromberg states:
It is thus clear that one may recover for an SEC violation falling under Rule 10b-5 even though there is no direct personal relationship. Whether, and to what extent Republic participated in the acts of Home-Stake and Trippet is a genuine, material issue of fact in this case precluding summary judgment thereon.
All defendants urge as a ground for summary judgment the defense of limitations. Plaintiff apparently is relying on section 17(a) of the 1933 Securities Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 77q(a)) and section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 78j). All parties agree that there is no federal statute of limitations under these sections and that state law applies. They do not agree what state law applies. Oklahoma has a general statute of limitations, 12 Okl.St.Ann. § 95(3) and a special statute of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schaefer v. First National Bank of Lincolnwood
...United Life Insurance Company, 259 F.Supp. 673, 682-683 (N. D.Ind.1966), and cases cited therein; Geo. H. McFadden & Bro., Inc. v. Home-Stake Production Co., 295 F.Supp. 587 (N.D.Okl.1968). Whether causation of these plaintiffs' injuries can be charged to Peltz, either alone or as part of a......
- Williams v. Kimbrough
-
Ohio v. Peterson, Lowry, Rall, Barber & Ross
...532 F.2d 1013 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1042, 97 S.Ct. 742, 50 L.Ed.2d 754 (1977); Geo. H. McFadden & Bro., Inc. v. Home-Stake Production Co., 295 F.Supp. 587 (D.Okl.1968). 5 Any possible doubt on that score is dispelled by the recent case, Terranova, supra, 563 P.2d at 367 (s......
-
United States v. RITA Organics, Inc., 79 C 1051.
...494 F.2d 168 (10th Cir. 1974); United States v. Alcatex, Inc., 328 F.Supp. 129 (S.D.N.Y.1971); Geo. H. McFadden & Bro., Inc. v. Home-Stake Production Co., 295 F.Supp. 587 (N.D.Okl.1968). Such is the case here. The Court has carefully examined the several assertions and arguments made by eac......