Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,890 the Franklin Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth Edison Company

Seventh Circuit

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,890 the Franklin Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth Edison Company

598 F.2d 1109

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedJune 27, 1979

Docket78-1896

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 598 F.2d 1109 (Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,890 the Franklin Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth Edison Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,890 the Franklin Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth Edison Company, 598 F.2d 1109 (7th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action arose out of the issuance and subsequent redemption of one million shares of 9.44% Cumulative Prior Preferred Stock at a par value of $100 per share by the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged violations of §§ 11 and 17 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k and 77q, and § 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1934, 15 *1110 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder. They also alleged a breach of contract claim based on the redemption terms in the prospectus and in the defendant’s Articles of Incorporation, and a third party beneficiary claim based on the defendant’s alleged violation of its listing agreement with the New York Stock Exchange.

After trial, the district court entered judgment for the defendant on all counts and issued a thorough and well-reasoned memorandum order addressing each issue. 451 F.Supp. 602 (S.D.I11.1978). The issues on appeal are virtually identical to those before the district court. Because we are of the opinion that the district court reached the correct result for the proper reasons, we adopt as our own that court’s opinion except for the last paragraph on page 615 and the first paragraph on page 616. These two paragraphs are not essential to the result, and accordingly we do not deem it appropriate to reach the issue there addressed.

The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This action arose out of the issuance and subsequent redemption of one million shares of 9.44% Cumulative Prior Preferred Stock at a par value of $100 per share by the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged violations of §§ 11 and 17 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k and 77q, and § 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1934, 15 *1110 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder. They also alleged a breach of contract claim based on the redemption terms in the prospectus and in the defendant’s Articles of Incorporation, and a third party beneficiary claim based on the defendant’s alleged violation of its listing agreement with the New York Stock Exchange.

After trial, the district court entered judgment for the defendant on all counts and issued a thorough and well-reasoned memorandum order addressing each issue. 451 F.Supp. 602 (S.D.I11.1978). The issues on appeal are virtually identical to those before the district court. Because we are of the opinion that the district court reached the correct result for the proper reasons, we adopt as our own that court’s opinion except for the last paragraph on page 615 and the first paragraph on page 616. These two paragraphs are not essential to the result, and accordingly we do not deem it appropriate to reach the issue there addressed.

The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

598 F.2d 1109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fed-sec-l-rep-p-96890-the-franklin-life-insurance-company-v-ca7-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack