Vesco v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 71-1711
| Citation | 462 F.2d 1350 |
| Decision Date | 28 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | 71-1712.,No. 71-1711,71-1711 |
| Parties | Robert L. VESCO, Appellant in No. 71-1711 and International Controls Corp., v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION et al. Appeal of INTERNATIONAL CONTROLS CORP., in No. 71-1712. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
Sherwin J. Markman, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Robert E. Kushner, Asst. Gen. Counsel, SEC, Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and VAN DUSEN and ADAMS, Circuit Judges.
Robert Vesco and the company of which he is chairman and chief executive officer, International Controls Corporation ICC, filed a complaint in the district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to the effect that the Securities and Exchange Commission SEC should not be permitted, pursuant to a subpoena served on plaintiffs, to require Vesco or ICC to divulge information or documents, the disclosure of which would subject them to criminal penalties based on Swiss law relating to the secrecy of banking transactions.
The SEC and the other defendants, in their answer, moved to dismiss the complaint, and filed a counterclaim asking the district court to order Vesco and ICC to comply with the SEC's subpoena. The district court granted the motion to dismiss the complaint and, after a hearing, judgment was entered for defendants on their counterclaim. Vesco and ICC have appealed from the judgments dismissing their complaint and granting the relief requested in the counterclaim.
Although important questions of law were briefed and argued by both sides, it has come to the attention of the Court through counsel that subsequent to the entry of the judgments appealed from, both Vesco and ICC have complied fully with the subpoena in issue. Thus, a question of mootness arises, and because it goes directly to our jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, we must consider the problem sua sponte. North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 92 S.Ct. 402, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971).
The complaint below sought to enjoin the enforcement of a particular subpoena. If we were to hold that the complaint were dismissed improperly, our ruling would have no effect on the complaint because plaintiffs' full compliance with the subpoena has obviated the originally surrounding the subpoena. Equally, to affirm the dismissal of the complaint would be merely academic because the controversy concerning this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
OpenPittsburgh.Org v. Voye
...intent to participate in the 2022 general election ballot process, the Court must address the question of mootness. See Vesco v. SEC , 462 F.2d 1350, 1351 (3d Cir. 1972) (explaining that because the issue of mootness directly impacts the court's ability to exercise jurisdiction, the court "......
-
U.S. v. Kis
...(1st Cir. 1971). Second Circuit: United States v. Deak-Perera Banking Corp., 610 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1979). Third Circuit: Vesco v. SEC, 462 F.2d 1350 (3d Cir. 1972) (analogous SEC subpoena case). Fourth Circuit: Kurshan v. Riley, 484 F.2d 952 (4th Cir. 1973). Fifth Circuit: Lawhon v. United S......
-
Gluck v. U.S., s. 84-5323
...execution of its judgment pending appeal, Franklin State Bank fully complied with the summonses. Relying on Vesco v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 462 F.2d 1350 (3d Cir.1972), the IRS argues that this action ended any controversy between the parties and mooted the Glucks' appeal becau......
-
U.S. v. Barrett
...Cir.1971). Second Circuit: United States v. Deak-Perera Intern. Banking Corp., 610 F.2d 89 (2d Cir.1979). Third Circuit: Vesco v. SEC, 462 F.2d 1350 (3d Cir.1972) (analogous SEC subpoena case). Fourth Circuit: Kurshan v. Riley, 484 F.2d 952 (4th Cir.1973). Sixth Circuit: United States v. Pa......