Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc.
| Citation | 940 F.2d 564 |
| Decision Date | 12 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 88-1253,88-1750,s. 88-1253 |
| Parties | , Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,097, 13 Employee Benefits Ca 2473 William T. USELTON; W.D. Hupp; C.J. Dowling; Kenneth Miles; G.D. Jeffcoat; Jack Wilson; K.D. Witt; Paula Rosa; Johnny S. Hunt; James A. Mason; Robert E. Stuart; Jerry Don Casey; Maurice Uhrmacher; Loyd A. Duncan; Vernon Jordan; Hubert D. Williamson; J.W. Haris; D.L. Haralson; Harvey Leo Hess; Wood G. Ishmael; Harold W. Summers; Charles E. Stockton; Joe C. Gray; Earl G. Jackson; E.L. Whilhock; Melvin Carpenter; Robert T. Keener; Troy G. Carson; Jack L. Blankinship; Carl L. Davidson; J.F. Maxwell; Paul M. Warren; Jay W. Harned; E.H. Coulter; Earl E. White; Cleo C. McDaniel; Bobby F. Stansbury; Bill J. Anderson; Daniel A. Denny; Carl Lee Wilson; Leroy Barrett; James E. Lee; Donald L. Butler; L.W. Gonzales; Daisy "Maurene" Davis; Keith W. Braul; Jerry L. Edgemon; Gilbert L. Robles; Loyd E. Courtney; Hollis M. Mauldin; Johnny L. Johnson; Carmel M. Doern; Tom Thelkekd; T.L. Jones; Kenneth W. Hays; Jackie Jones; William Donley; Howard L. Mitchell; Earl D. Denton; Stanley R. Gomes; Jack P. Rowland; K.L. Billingsley; Earl L. Woffard; D. Td. Frizell; H.W. Richardson; Donald Kendrix; Betty Cox; James M. Woodward; Frank Donald R. Winter; Jack Yarbrough; Finis M. Yocum; Tommy L. Kirkland; John A. Moyshen; Harold Allison; Marion McClelland; Leslie R. Walcher; Lloyd Fortune, Sr.; B.C. Evans; Raymond B. Horn; Leeha McCormick; Pete Wolf; Leon Hancock; William Anderson; Robert G. Porter; Eldon W. Bishop; E.B. Copeland; D.K. Hanshue; E.G. Dedmon; Leslie R. Walcher; Carl L. Holman; Kenneth W. Jackson; Joel Robinson; Charles Pemberton; Bruce O. Smith; T.D. Jack; James T. Johnson; Willie G. Loudermilk; Raymond Horn; George C. Tsoodle; Gerold L. Goad; B.J. Burrell; D.Y. Qualine; Frances M. McKye; Alonzo Anderson; Hoarce E. Reeves; Betty Moore; Billy R. Jenkins; Jerry A. Warren; C.J. Womack; Johnny Ballard; Kelley Ruminer; Deborah Yandell; Robert Ferguson; Claudie C. Weaver; John O. Stanley; William R. Bricker; Elen H. Spiva; Phill |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
Joseph C. Long, Norman, Okl. (E.W. Keller and Trent Keller, Keller, Fernald & Keller, Oklahoma City, Okl., with him on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.
Harold H. Reader, II, Cleveland, Ohio, and Michael L. Brody, Schiff, Hardin & Waite, Chicago, Ill. (John R. Couch, James E. Golden, Jr., with them on the brief), for defendants-appellees M.T. Alcox, W.D. Persavich, C.C. McCracken, N.L. Ingrum, H.J. Hill, and G.W. McIntyre.
Charles C. Green, Oklahoma City, Okl., Roger Pascal, Michael L. Brody, Robert D. Campbell, Schiff, Hardin & Waite, Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellees and cross-appellants Pepsico, Inc., Lawrence Dickie, James English, Judy Norman-Davis, Richard Campbell, and Sharon Schroder.
Before McKAY and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges, and KANE, * District Judge.
This appeal arises out of an action brought by more than four hundred former employees of Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. against their former employer and others alleging violations of federal and Oklahoma securities law and common law fraud. After a segmented trial to the court on the issue of whether an interest in the instrument at issue, an employee stock ownership plan, constituted a security under federal law, the district court held that it did not and entered judgment for defendants on the federal securities claims. Finding no basis for federal jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' remaining state law claims, the court dismissed them in their entirety. This appeal and cross-appeal followed upon the court's denial of defendants' motion for costs and fees. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted: Plaintiffs-appellants in this matter are 485 former union employees of Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. (Lee Way), a common carrier engaged in the interstate and intrastate transportation of commodities. In 1976, Lee Way was acquired by defendant-appellee Pepsico, Inc., which operated the company as a wholly owned subsidiary until June 1984 when it agreed to sell Lee Way to defendant-appellee Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc. (CL). Because CL was also a common carrier, this sale was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maez v. Mountain States Tel. and Tel., Inc.
... ... of Oklahoma, Inc., 944 F.2d 752 (10th Cir.1991); Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 940 F.2d 564 ... ...
-
Raymond v. Mobil Oil Corp.
... ... at 117-18, 109 S.Ct. at 958; see also Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 940 ... ...
-
F.D.I.C. v. Oldenburg
... ... Inc., Empire State West, Landfund, Ltd., James W ... (e) to negotiable instruments or other commercial paper. 28 ... When a statute's ... Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 626 F.2d 784, 797 (10th Cir.1980), cert ... is primarily a factual inquiry." Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 940 ... ...
-
Matassarin v. Lynch
... ... Ownership Plan; Great Empire Broadcasting, Inc., ... Individually and as a Plan Administrator ... 790, 58 L.Ed.2d 808 (1979); Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, 940 F.2d ... ...
-
SEC v. Ripple: A Tale of Two Token Transaction Types
...Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am. v. Daniel, 439 U.S. 551, 560 (1979). [x] Uselton v. Com. Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 940 F.2d 564 (10th Cir. 1991). [xi] See, e.g., SEC v. v. Datronics Engineers, 490 F.2d 250 (4th Cir. 1973) (citing SEC v. Harwyn Industries Corp., 326 F. Supp. 94......
-
Taking the “Fun” Out of Non-Fungible Tokens: Could Securities Laws Apply to NFTs?
...in oil, gas, or other mineral rights.” See 15 U.S. Code § 77b(a)(1). [8]. See, e.g., Uselton v. Com. Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 940 F.2d 564, 574–75 (10th Cir. 1991) (“[I]n spite of Howey’s reference to an ‘investment of money,’ it is well established that cash is not the only form of co......
-
SECURITIES FRAUD
...not a voluntary investment choice, but a mandatory employer-funded program). But see Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 940 F.2d 564, 582 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding that ERISA fails to displace the 1933 Act’s applicability to a stock ownership plan, in part because it does n......
-
Securities fraud.
...voluntary investment choice but instead a mandatory employer-funded program). But see Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 940 F.2d 564, 582 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding that ERISA failed to displace Security Act's applicability to stock ownership plan because it did not render ......
-
Securities fraud.
...voluntary investment choice but instead a mandatory employer-funded program). But see Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 940 F.2d 564, 582 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding that ERISA failed to displace Security Act's applicability to stock ownership plan because it did not render ......
-
Securities fraud.
...voluntary investment choice, but instead a mandatory employer-funded program). But see Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc., 940 F.2d 564, 582 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding that ERISA failed to displace Security Act's applicability to stock ownership plan because it did not render......