SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COM'N v. Jan-Dal Oil & Gas, Inc., 3-70.
| Citation | 433 F.2d 304 |
| Decision Date | 27 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-70.,3-70. |
| Parties | SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Appellant, v. JAN-DAL OIL & GAS, INC., and E. Dale Crabtree, Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
David Ferber, Sol. (Philip A. Loomis, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Paul Gonson, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Warren G. Stolusky, Atty., Securities & Exchange Comm., Washington, D. C., on the brief) for appellant.
Paul M. Kimball, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellees.
Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, and HICKEY and HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges.
The Securities and Exchange Commission appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma setting aside a permanent injunction which had been entered against Jan-Dal Oil & Gas, Inc., and E. Dale Crabtree, with their consent, on April 11, 1968.
The Commissioner's complaint, filed on April 10, 1968, alleged that since about 1963 the defendants, Jan-Dal and E. Dale Crabtree, president of the corporation, had engaged in the sale of fractional undivided interests in oil, gas, and other mineral rights in properties located in Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma; that these securities were not registered with the Commission; and that accordingly the defendants had engaged in acts and practices constituting violations of the registration provisions of section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77(e).
On April 11, 1968, both defendants consented to the entry of a permanent injunction. The consent decree permanently enjoined the defendants from selling or offering to sell "fractional undivided interests in oil, gas, and other mineral rights on properties situated in Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma, or elsewhere, or any other securities" in violation of the registration provisions of the Securities Act of 1933.
Eight months later, on December 12, 1968, the defendants-appellees initiated this action to dissolve the injunction that had been entered against them. The motion stated that they had abided by the first judgment entered April 11, 1968; that they were "entitled to transact their normal course of business without the continuing presence of" the injunction; and that the existence of the injunction might "cause unnecessary delay and hindrance in obtaining the approval" of a registration statement that they contemplated filing with the Commission, and might adversely affect the proposed sale of oil and gas interests.
In support of its order the trial court found or concluded that appellees had complied with the terms of the injunction in good faith and had continued their securities business with affirmative compliance with S.E.C. requirements for eight months; that the injunction was burdensome and oppressive to their business reputation and activities and that there was no reason to apprehend any further violation of the Securities Act; that sufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dowell by Dowell v. Board of Educ. of Oklahoma City Public Schools, Independent Dist. No. 89, Oklahoma City, Okl.
...or dissolving an injunction. United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633, 73 S.Ct. 894, 897, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953); Jan-Dal Oil & Gas, Inc., 433 F.2d at 304. 13 Nor can a mere change of conditions alter the prospective ordering of relationships embodied by a permanent injunction. The ......
-
Martinez v. Bowen
...when "the changes are so important that dangers, once substantial, have become attenuated to a shadow," SEC v. Jan-Dal Oil & Gas, Inc., 433 F.2d 304, 305 (10th Cir.1970) and the order has become "an instrument of wrong". Wright, supra, 364 U.S. at 647, 81 S.Ct. at 371. Such a reluctance to ......
-
Dowell v. Okl. City Public Schools, Ind. Dist. 89
...articulated guidelines which govern the dissolution or changing of mandatory decrees. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jan-Dal Oil & Gas, Inc., 433 F.2d 304, 305 (10th Cir.1970) (An injunction may be dissolved or modified where the underlying facts have so changed that the dangers prev......
-
E.E.O.C. v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
...the decree oppressive. United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 119, 52 S.Ct. 460, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932); S. E. C. v. Jan-Dal Oil & Gas, Inc., 433 F.2d 304, 305 (10th Cir. 1970); Ridley v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 427 F.2d 19, 22 (10th Cir. 1970). We find no abuse of discretion in the distr......