Pawgan v. Silverstein, No. 66 Civ. 3351.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
Writing for the CourtBenedict Ginsberg, New York City, for defendants
Citation265 F. Supp. 898
PartiesMartin PAWGAN et al., Plaintiffs, v. Larry A. SILVERSTEIN et al., Defendants.
Decision Date30 March 1967
Docket NumberNo. 66 Civ. 3351.

265 F. Supp. 898

Martin PAWGAN et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Larry A. SILVERSTEIN et al., Defendants.

No. 66 Civ. 3351.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

March 30, 1967.


265 F. Supp. 899

Harvey M. Sklaver and Schwartz & Frank, New York City, for plaintiffs; George H. Schwartz, Harvey M. Sklaver and Paul E. Gelbard, New York City, of counsel.

Benedict Ginsberg, New York City, for defendants.

METZNER, District Judge.

The plaintiffs are five individuals, each of whom purchased general partnership interests in Motel City B Associates, a New York general partnership. The defendants are three individuals who also had general partnership interests in Associates and were designated as the managing partners.

The plaintiffs seek rescission of their purchase based on alleged violations of sections 17(a) and 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a) and 77l(2)); section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)), and rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5); and section 352-c of the General Business Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 20 of the State of New York.

Defendants have moved for an order staying the plaintiffs from the further prosecution of this action and directing them to arbitrate any claim or controversy that may exist between the parties pursuant to the terms of the partnership agreement.

The questions to be decided are whether these general partnership interests

265 F. Supp. 900
were in fact a "security" within the definition of section 2(1) of the 1933 act, and if so, are they covered by the provisions of the 1933 and 1934 acts

The partnership consisted of 20 persons, three of whom were the managing partners. Its purpose was to purchase and lease back to the seller a motel, located in New York City, on a net lease basis. The partnership really was a syndication, a popular method initiated in the 1950s for raising money for real estate ventures. Here the defendants had first entered into a contract to acquire the motel, and by the partnership agreement assigned the contract to the partnership for a 10% interest in the partnership, and the designation as managing partners. Further, the property could not be sold without the approval of the managing partners. The capital of the partnership was $720,000, and the value of the contract assigned by the defendants was fixed at $72,000. The balance of $648,000 was obtained by cash contributions from 17 other persons who were induced by defendants to purchase general partnership interests. $630,000 was needed to cover the purchase price of the motel which included $10,000 put up as a binder by defendants on the contract. The remaining $18,000 was to cover defendants' expenses in the acquisition of the property and the formation of the partnership. Thus the defendants received a 10% interest for putting the deal together without having a penny of cost to themselves.

The particular syndication we are dealing with here has been discussed at length in United States v. Silverstein, 237 F.Supp. 446 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 344 F.2d 1016 (2d Cir. 1965). It is obvious that this venture was not a general partnership in the accepted sense, and calling it one does not properly reflect its real business form.

From the facts as outlined above, and Judge Bryan's opinion...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 practice notes
  • Pioneer Properties, Inc. v. Martin, No. 81-1137.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
    • March 3, 1983
    ...Canadian real estate is a transaction involving commerce for purposes of application of the Arbitration Act. Cf. Pawgan v. Silverstein, 265 F.Supp. 898 (S.D.N.Y.1967) (court declined to apply Act to intrastate securities transaction involving sale of partnership interests); Sinva, Inc. v. M......
  • Williamson v. Tucker, No. 79-1058
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • May 20, 1981
    ...power in the hands of certain managing partners may be an investment contract with respect to the other partners. Pawgan v. Silverstein, 265 F.Supp. 898 (S.D.N.Y. 1967). In such a case the agreement allocates partnership power as in a limited partnership, which has long been held to be an i......
  • Roodveldt v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Civ. A. No. 83-3412.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • February 6, 1984
    ...and a contract or agreement not predicated upon interstate commerce must be governed by state arbitration law. Pawgan v. Silverstein, 265 F.Supp. 898, 901 (S.D.N.Y.1967). Federal courts have consistently held that the contract between a New York Stock Exchange brokerage firm and its employe......
  • Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc. v. Liang, No. 79 C 2241.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • June 30, 1980
    ...and a contract or agreement not predicated upon interstate commerce must be governed by state arbitration law. Pawgan v. Silverstein, 265 F.Supp. 898, 901 (S.D.N.Y.1967). The contract between a New York Stock Exchange brokerage firm and its employee is a contract involving interstate commer......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 cases
  • Pioneer Properties, Inc. v. Martin, No. 81-1137.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
    • March 3, 1983
    ...Canadian real estate is a transaction involving commerce for purposes of application of the Arbitration Act. Cf. Pawgan v. Silverstein, 265 F.Supp. 898 (S.D.N.Y.1967) (court declined to apply Act to intrastate securities transaction involving sale of partnership interests); Sinva, Inc. v. M......
  • Williamson v. Tucker, No. 79-1058
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • May 20, 1981
    ...power in the hands of certain managing partners may be an investment contract with respect to the other partners. Pawgan v. Silverstein, 265 F.Supp. 898 (S.D.N.Y. 1967). In such a case the agreement allocates partnership power as in a limited partnership, which has long been held to be an i......
  • Roodveldt v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Civ. A. No. 83-3412.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • February 6, 1984
    ...and a contract or agreement not predicated upon interstate commerce must be governed by state arbitration law. Pawgan v. Silverstein, 265 F.Supp. 898, 901 (S.D.N.Y.1967). Federal courts have consistently held that the contract between a New York Stock Exchange brokerage firm and its employe......
  • Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc. v. Liang, No. 79 C 2241.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • June 30, 1980
    ...and a contract or agreement not predicated upon interstate commerce must be governed by state arbitration law. Pawgan v. Silverstein, 265 F.Supp. 898, 901 (S.D.N.Y.1967). The contract between a New York Stock Exchange brokerage firm and its employee is a contract involving interstate commer......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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