S.E.C. v. Geon Industries, Inc.

Decision Date09 February 1976
Docket NumberD,Nos. 27,204 and 206,s. 27,204 and 206
PartiesFed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,441 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GEON INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants, Frank Bloom and Edwards & Hanly, Defendants-Appellees. ockets 74-2614, 74-2657 and 75-7010.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Stanley Sporkin, Washington, D.C. (Lawrence E. Nerheim, Gen. Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., David Ferber, Sol., Richard E. Nathan, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., Van P. Carter, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant Securities and Exchange Commission.

Jay G. Strum, New York City (Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler and Lewis J. Korman, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellants Geon Industries, Inc. and George O. Neuwirth and defendant-appellee Frank Bloom.

Delson & Gordon, New York City (Evan L. Gordon, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee Edwards & Hanly.

Before LUMBARD, FRIENDLY and MULLIGAN, Circuit Judges.

FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge:

These appeals from a judgment in an action by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, 381 F.Supp. 1063 (1974), raise some novel questions about liability for 'tipping' under Rule 10b--5; about the standard of frankness which a corporate executive is required to observe in answering questions from an exchange on which his company's stock is listed; and about the responsibility of a brokerage firm to police the activities of a registered representative. All these arise in a context where the sole relief sought by the SEC, against those parties who did not consent to judgment, is an injunction.

I. The Facts

Defendant Geon Industries, Inc. (Geon or the Company), whose principal office is located in Woodbury, Long Island, is primarily engaged in the importation and distribution of repair and replacement parts for imported cars and trucks. It has outstanding approximately 2,000,000 shares of common stock which are listed on the American Stock Exchange (Amex). Defendant George O. Neuwirth was, as the company's name indicates, Geon's founder, chief executive officer, and chairman of its board of directors; he controlled, through direct ownership and a voting trust, some 28% of its stock. Defendant Frank Bloom was its Secretary-Treasurer and Financial Vice President.

In July, 1973, Geon retained Drexel-Burnham & Co. to arrange for discussions concerning a possible merger of Geon and a much larger British company, Burmah Oil Co., Ltd. (Burmah). After some preliminary discussions Burmah requested a forecast from Geon on the future of the automobile replacement parts industry, five-year pro forma income and balance sheet estimates, and an accompanying cash flow projection. Bloom was designated as the liaison officer to prepare and transmit this information. In mid-October Burmah indicated further interest in the company and a desire to pursue its investigation. Since George Neuwirth was planning a trip to England to attend the annual automobile show at Earl's Court, it was decided, in accordance with a suggestion of Bloom's, to have Bloom and George's son, Peter, join him in a visit to Burmah's headquarters. While in England, they apparently also had a preliminary discussion with another English firm interested in Geon; in any case, nothing definite was concluded in the meeting with Burmah's executives.

Before leaving for England, Neuwirth met with Roy Alpert, a friend and business associate in real estate transactions, in the bar of a country club on Long Island, in accordance with a custom whereby the Neuwirths and the Alperts would generally dine together on Wednesday nights. With some other people around, Neuwirth announced that he was going to London and, on being asked why, answered that this was for the auto show 'and perhaps looking at some people in view of a merger.' 1 Alpert, who previously had owned only 250 shares of Geon, bought 2,600 more shares shortly thereafter, and informed his two brothers of his purchase; they also bought Geon stock. 2

Marvin Rauch, a registered representative who had been associated with Philips, Appel & Walden, became an employee of Edwards & Hanly (E&H), at its Hewlett, Long Island, office, on August 22, 1973. Neuwirth had first met him at the Geon stockholders' meeting in 1970; Rauch indicated he was selling Geon stock to customers. After moving to E&H's Hewlett office, Rauch began to telephone Neuwirth frequently. Just before Neuwirth left for England, Rauch called him about a report on Geon of which he had heard; Neuwirth told him it was by Coenen & Co. After Neuwirth's return, Rauch resumed calling frequently and pressing Neuwirth to have lunch since Rauch's office was nearby. 3 The lunch was held on November 21; Rauch asked what Neuwirth termed 'broker's questions' about Geon, the details of which, and of his answers, Neuwirth could not recall. After the lunch Neuwirth received two bottles of liquor from Rauch. At some time within two weeks of the luncheon, Neuwirth telephoned Rauch at his home, because Rauch's name was among those given by Neuwirth's secretary as having telephoned in his absence. Neuwirth could not recall the details of the conversation but was sure it was not about Burmah.

Between November 2 and December 3, when the first press release about the contemplated merger with Burmah was made, Rauch placed orders for 12,250 shares of Geon: 1,900 were placed in the name of his wife, 600 were placed in the name of Louis Maione but actually were bought for James McMahon, comptroller of a wholly-owned subsidiary of Geon, and 9,750 were for 17 other customers; during the same period he sold only 300 shares, none of which were from his or his wife's accounts. Rosenfeld, the partner of E&H who was manager of the Hewlett office, bought 575 shares for his wife on November 2 and 5, and Lynn, the assistant manager, between November 2 and December 3, bought 2,700 shares, 650 of which were apparently for himself.

It was not until December 3, 1973, after public rumors had begun to circulate leading to an inquiry by officials of Amex, that Geon issued a press release announcing its preliminary discussions with Burmah. On December 18, the company confirmed that negotiations were continuing, and predicted that a further announcement would shortly follow. It did; on December 20 Geon announced that the companies had reached an agreement in principle whereby Geon was to be acquired by Burmah for $36 million in cash--about $16.80 per share. 4

Shortly before the second announcement, Neuwirth told Alpert, over the telephone, that he could not attend his own birthday party, planned for December 17, because business commitments would keep him in New York City. Alpert bought 1,000 shares of Geon on or about December 19, as did each of his brothers. At their weekly dinner on Wednesday, February 20, 1974, Neuwirth mentioned to Alpert that Geon's board of directors would meet the next day to 'rubber stamp' the contract with Burmah; when Alpert heard nothing from Neuwirth by Friday morning, February 22, he and his brothers sold their Geon stock during the brief period when, as described below, the stock was being traded.

Under the proposed contract Burmah's obligation to purchase was conditioned on Geon's having consolidated net income before taxes, for the year ended December 31, 1973, equal to or in excess of $3,847,000, and on Geon's having a net worth, as of December 31, 1973, equal to or in excess of $14,000,000. In preparation for the board meeting on February 21, 1974, Bloom had instructed his accounting staff to prepare preliminary earnings figures for the year ended December 31, 1973. On the morning of February 21, he learned that a $313,000 intra-company profit item from a previous period had not been reversed, but rather had been improperly reflected in 1973 income--an error which, however, would not by itself have caused Geon's earnings to fall below the stipulated figure. 5 Much more serious was a report to Bloom that branches were coming in with preliminary gross profits which were some $700,000 less than anticipated. These, along with a reported shortfall of $180,000 at the Aviation Export Division, indicated the possibility of a shortfall (apart from the $313,000 error) sufficient to avoid Burmah's obligation to purchase.

For various reasons detailed in the record, Bloom did not believe these preliminary figures were accurate. On arriving at the directors' meeting in New York City, he reported what he had learned during the morning. It was agreed that the meeting should be adjourned until Sunday evening, an interval which Bloom thought would be sufficient for him and his staff, along with Geon's outside accountants, to gain a firmer view of the facts. There was testimony that it was agreed to be of the utmost importance that the entire matter be kept confidential. Also, as Bloom testified, on the recommendation of John A. Friedman and perhaps also of Lewis J. Korman, both members of the law firm that was Geon's general counsel, it was agreed after the meeting 'that the stock should be monitored the next day for any unusual activity, because there's always a concern with the fact that a rumor can get out and that you don't have complete confidentiality.'

Bloom returned to Geon's offices and worked with James McMahon and others until after midnight. By ten o'clock they were able to confirm that an error had indeed been made in failing to eliminate $313,000 in intra-company profits. However, they were unable to make meaningful progress with respect to the shortfalls in earnings.

Seemingly McMahon was more convinced than Bloom that the preliminary information was right. After leaving the Geon office he called Rauch in the small hours of the morning and instructed Rauch to sell all of his Geon holdings as well as those...

To continue reading

Request your trial
99 cases
  • Haynes v. Anderson & Strudwick, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 3 Febrero 1981
    ... ... Compare SEC v. Geon Indus., Inc., 531 F.2d 39, 54-56 (2d Cir. 1976); SEC v. Management Dynamics, Inc., 515 ... 1977); Kuehnert v. Texstar Corp., 412 F.2d 700, 703-05 (5th Cir. 1969); In re Haven Industries, Inc., 462 F.Supp. 172, 177-180 (S.D.N.Y.1978) with Nathanson v. Weis, Voison, Cannon, Inc., ... ...
  • Healey v. Catalyst Recovery of Pennsylvania, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 29 Enero 1980
    ... Page 641 ... 616 F.2d 641 ... Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,268 ... Michael J. HEALEY, Jr., Individually and for himself and ... derivatively ... have argued that Goldberg is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's opinion in Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green, 430 U.S. 462, 97 S.Ct. 1292, 51 L.Ed.2d 480 (1977). E. g., Note, Goldberg v ... Geon Industries, Inc., 531 F.2d 39 (2 Cir. 1976), but would not cover a parent's undisclosed or ... ...
  • Sharp v. Coopers & Lybrand
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 5 Junio 1981
    ... Page 175 ... 649 F.2d 175 ... Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,971 ... SHARP, Stanley L ... COOPERS & LYBRAND, ... secondary liability under rule 10b-5, see Rochez Brothers, Inc. v. Rhoades, 527 F.2d 880, 884 (3d Cir. 1975) (Rochez II ), cert. denied, ... altered the 'total mix' of information made available." TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 449, 96 S.Ct. 2126, 2132, 48 ... 1975), and SEC v. Geon Industries, Inc., 531 F.2d 39, 53-56 (2d Cir. 1976). In Management ... ...
  • Hartford Fire Ins. v. Federated Dept. Stores
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 13 Octubre 1989
    ... ... FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., Campeau Corporation, Campeau Corporation (U.S.) Inc., and CRTF ...     On January 22, 1987, Federated filed a shelf registration under SEC Rule 415 to issue up to $500 million of debt securities in one or more ... Geon Indus., Inc., 531 F.2d 39, 47 (2d Cir.1976) (Friendly, J.)). However, ... material — as the Supreme Court defined that concept in TSC Industries and Basic — is worth quoting at length: ... For one thing, the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Just Do It! Specific Rulemaking on Materiality Guidance in Insider Trading
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review No. 72-4, July 2012
    • 1 Octubre 2012
    ...485 U.S. 224, 238–39 (1988); Heminway, supra note 43 , at 1163–64. 115. Basic , 485 U.S. at 238 (citing SEC v. Geon Industries, Inc., 531 F.2d 39, 47 –48 (2d Cir. 1976)). 116. See id. at 239 (advising attention to “such facts as the size of the two corporate entities and of the potential pr......
  • Disclosure of Merger Negotiations: Formulating a Proper Response Under the Federal Securities Laws
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 17-5, May 1988
    • Invalid date
    ...makes it easier for plaintiffs to bring an action under Rule 10b-5. 27. Basic, supra, note 2 at 4235. 28. Id. 29. Id. at 4236, 4234. 30. 531 F.2d 39, 47-48 (2d Cir. 1976). 31. 814 F.2d 1169 (7th Cir. 1987). 32. 711 F.2d 11, 14 (2nd Cir. 1983); see also, Staffin v. Greenberg, 672 F.2d 1196 (......
  • Cba Revised Ethics Opinion No. 69: Communicating With the Employee or Former Employee of an Adverse Party Organization
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 08-1987, August 1987
    • Invalid date
    ...M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence¶ 801(d)(2)(D)[01] at 801-222 n. 16 (1985); Securities and Exchange Commission v. Geon Industries, Inc., 531 F.2d 39, 43 n. 3 (2d Cir. 1976). As a former employee is thus not the "party," i.e., the organization, an attorney does not violate DR7-104(A)(1) by co......
  • Rules 801 and 804: the Admissibility of Out-of-court Statements Made by Present and Former Employees
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 26-9, September 1997
    • Invalid date
    ...In re A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 575 F.Supp. 718 (D.Kan. 1983). 9. Boren, supra, note 8 at 1038. 10. Id. 11. SEC v. Geon Industries, Inc., 531 F.2d 39, 43 (2nd 1976); Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F.Supp. 1282, 1295 (E.D.Cal. 1995). 12. See Cline, supra, note 8 at 488; Hill, supra, note 8 at 237; Nekol......

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