John v. Holmes v. William Lucius Cary

Fifth Circuit

John v. Holmes v. William Lucius Cary

355 F.2d 150

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 19, 1966

Docket22098_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 355 F.2d 150 (John v. Holmes v. William Lucius Cary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John v. Holmes v. William Lucius Cary, 355 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This case, arising out of a much litigated dispute between Plaintiffs and the SEC, 1 represents an attempt to require the SEC to file, make public, and treat in a regular fashion a paper which purports to be a registration statement. In view of the fact that this paper clearly fails to meet the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 and the SEC’s rules and regulations, we agree fully with the District Court that it does not represent a bona fide attempt to qualify to sell securities to the investing public and hence is not a registration statement at all. Summary judgment for the Defendants was correct.

Affirmed.

1

. Holmes v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 353 F.2d 785 [Dec. 13, 1965] ; Holmes v. Eddy, 4 Cir., 1965, 341 F.2d 477; SEC v. Bond & Share Corp., W.D.Okl., 1963, 229 F.Supp. 88 (appeal pending to 10th Circuit).

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

PER CURIAM:

This case, arising out of a much litigated dispute between Plaintiffs and the SEC, 1 represents an attempt to require the SEC to file, make public, and treat in a regular fashion a paper which purports to be a registration statement. In view of the fact that this paper clearly fails to meet the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 and the SEC’s rules and regulations, we agree fully with the District Court that it does not represent a bona fide attempt to qualify to sell securities to the investing public and hence is not a registration statement at all. Summary judgment for the Defendants was correct.

Affirmed.

1

. Holmes v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 353 F.2d 785 [Dec. 13, 1965] ; Holmes v. Eddy, 4 Cir., 1965, 341 F.2d 477; SEC v. Bond & Share Corp., W.D.Okl., 1963, 229 F.Supp. 88 (appeal pending to 10th Circuit).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 F.2d 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-v-holmes-v-william-lucius-cary-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack