Commercial Capital Corp. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COM'N, No. 15365.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtDUFFY, SCHNACKENBERG and KNOCH, Circuit
Citation360 F.2d 856
Decision Date02 May 1966
Docket NumberNo. 15365.
PartiesCOMMERCIAL CAPITAL CORPORATION, a corporation, G.N. Van Horn and Bert Chesnut, Petitioners, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent.

360 F.2d 856 (1966)

COMMERCIAL CAPITAL CORPORATION, a corporation, G.N. Van Horn and Bert Chesnut, Petitioners,
v.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 15365.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

May 2, 1966.


360 F.2d 857

John J. Enright, Chicago, Ill., for petitioners, Arvey, Hodes & Mantynband, Chicago, Ill., of counsel.

Philip A. Loomis, Jr., Gen. Counsel, David Ferber, Sol., Securities and Exchange Commission, Martin D. Newman, Atty., Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before DUFFY, SCHNACKENBERG and KNOCH, Circuit Judges.

DUFFY, Circuit Judge.

Petitioners Van Horn and Chesnut appearing pursuant to subpoena, testified in a nonpublic investigation conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to Commercial Capital Corporation and others.

Thereafter, on May 28, 1965, petitioners' attorney requested permission, pursuant to Rule 6 of the SEC's Rules Relating to Investigations (17 CFR § 203.6) to purchase copies of their transcripts from the official reporter.

On July 21, 1965, a letter was issued from the Securities and Exchange Commission bearing the signature of the Commission's secretary which stated in material part:

"Please be advised that the Commission has denied your request for authorization to purchase a copy of the above-captioned testimony. The Commission determined that the granting of the request at this time would be inconsistent with the proper execution of its statutory functions."

This is the "order" which petitioners seek to review.

Prior to oral argument, the Securities and Exchange Commission moved to dismiss the instant petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, claiming that the Commission's order was not reviewable. We ordered that the motion to dismiss be taken with the case. On oral argument, this point was argued as well as petitioners' contention that the manner in which the Commission refused to sell them a transcript of the investigative hearing, amounted to a denial of due process.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has broad authority to adopt rules and regulations necessary for the execution of it functions. The Commission has adopted a body of rules known as "Rules Relating to Investigations, 17 CFR 203.1, et seq." Rule 6 of these rules provides:

"Transcripts, if any, of formal investigative proceedings, shall be recorded solely by the official reporter, or by any other person or means designated by the officer
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Health insurance reform: Civil money penalties; investigations policies and procedures, penalties imposition, and hearings,
    • United States
    • Federal Register February 16, 2006
    • February 16, 2006
    ...with economic or other reprisals.'' LaMorte v. Mansfield, 438 F.2d 448, 451 (2d Cir. 1971) (quoting Commercial Capital Corp. v. S.E.C., 360 F.2d 856, 858 (7th Cir. Comment: Several comments suggested that evidence obtained during an investigation by HHS should be used only within the scope ......
  • Part III
    • United States
    • Federal Register February 16, 2006
    • February 16, 2006
    ...with economic or other reprisals.'' LaMorte v. Mansfield, 438 F.2d 448, 451 (2d Cir. 1971) (quoting Commercial Capital Corp. v. S.E.C., 360 F.2d 856, 858 (7th Cir. Comment: Several comments suggested that evidence obtained during an investigation by HHS should be used only within the scope ......
  • Checkosky v. S.E.C., Nos. 92-1396
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • May 20, 1994
    ...necessary for carrying out the agency's designated functions." Touche Ross, 609 F.2d at 580 (quoting Commercial Capital Corp. v. SEC, 360 F.2d 856, 857 (7th Cir.1966)). Inherent in this authority is the power to protect the integrity of the agency's administrative Although there is no expre......
  • Touche Ross & Co. v. S.E.C., No. 155
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 10, 1979
    ...those rules and regulations necessary for carrying out the agency's designated functions. See, e. g., Commercial Capital Corp. v. SEC, 360 F.2d 856, 857 (7 Cir. 1966). Congress realized that it could not enact express statutory provisions to deal with every possible evil that might develop.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Checkosky v. S.E.C., Nos. 92-1396
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • May 20, 1994
    ...necessary for carrying out the agency's designated functions." Touche Ross, 609 F.2d at 580 (quoting Commercial Capital Corp. v. SEC, 360 F.2d 856, 857 (7th Cir.1966)). Inherent in this authority is the power to protect the integrity of the agency's administrative Although there is no expre......
  • Touche Ross & Co. v. S.E.C., No. 155
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 10, 1979
    ...those rules and regulations necessary for carrying out the agency's designated functions. See, e. g., Commercial Capital Corp. v. SEC, 360 F.2d 856, 857 (7 Cir. 1966). Congress realized that it could not enact express statutory provisions to deal with every possible evil that might develop.......
  • Greer v. New Jersey Bureau of Securities
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • June 17, 1994
    ...previous testimony," or "to threaten witnesses about to testify with economic or other reprisals." See Commercial Capital Corp. v. SEC, 360 F.2d 856, 858 (7th Cir.1966), (holding the SEC has the discretion to withhold transcripts of a witness' testimony in a nonpublic investigation, and it ......
  • LaMorte v. Mansfield, No. 631
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • January 14, 1971
    ...previous testimony, and to threaten witnesses about to testify with economic or other reprisals." Commercial Capital Corp. v. S. E. C., 360 F.2d 856, 858 (7 Cir. 1966).2 To the extent that a privilege exists, it is the agency's, not the witness'. The agency is free to withdraw the veil of s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Law, Fact, and the Threat of Reversal From Above
    • United States
    • American Politics Research Nbr. 42-2, March 2014
    • March 1, 2014
    ...No326 F.2d 488 Yes No331 F.2d 165 Yes No336 F.2d 115 Yes No336 F.2d 942 Yes Yes344 F.2d 47 No Yes351 F.2d 771 Yes Yes355 F.2d 851 Yes No360 F.2d 856 No Yes361 F.2d 300 Yes No365 F.2d 515 Yes No369 F.2d 495 Yes Yes375 F.2d 707 Yes No376 F.2d 131 Yes No379 F.2d 536 Yes No379 F.2d 814 Yes No38......

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