Securities & Exchange Commission v. Belmont Oil Corp.

185 F. Supp. 743, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4034
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedDecember 15, 1959
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 185 F. Supp. 743 (Securities & Exchange Commission v. Belmont Oil Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Belmont Oil Corp., 185 F. Supp. 743, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4034 (S.D.N.Y. 1959).

Opinion

BICKS, District Judge.

Upon the complaint filed herein and upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law heretofore filed herein and upon all the other papers and proceedings' taken and had, it is

Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendants James B. Boren, Joel A. Fox, Vince Sehwenoha, Helen Schwenoha, Peerless-New York, Incorporated, Myron Rosenthal, d/b/a H. G. Stolle and Company and Carlton Securities, Inc., their agents, servants, employees, attorneys and assigns and each of them be and they hereby are enjoined pending final determination of this action and until the further order of this Court from:

1. Using any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly, to obtain money or property by means of untrue statements of material facts concerning:

(a) The prospective merger or consolidation of Belmont Oil Corporation with a major oil company;

(b) The ownership of a number of substantially productive oil and gas wells in Texas, California and elsewhere;

(c) The present production of substantial volumes of marketable oil and gas from Belmont’s operating properties;

(d) The net worth of Belmont Oil Corporation;

(e) The right or option of existing stockholders to purchase up to 10 additional shares of Belmont Oil Corporation for each share presently held;

(f) The listing of shares of Belmont Oil Corporation on a national securities exchange.

[744]*7442. • Using any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or using the mails, directly or indirectly to obtain money or property by means of any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading concerning:

(a) The disposition of the proceeds of the sale of shares of Belmont Oil Corporation;

(b) The actual amounts of oil and gas produced from the properties in which Belmont Oil Corporation held partial participating interests;

(e) The gross receipts by Belmont Oil Corporation from oil properties;

(d) The operating deficit of Belmont Oil Corporation;

(e) The cash and other assets of Belmont Oil Corporation;

(f) The sole asset of Belmont Oil Corporation at the time of its acquisition by defendant Boren, i. e., an account receivable on its books for $17,500;

(g) The past history of Belmont Oil Corporation, including the date of its original incorporation in Nevada in 1919 and the subsequent revocation of its charter in. 1924;

(h) The purpose of reviving the charter of the corporation in 1956;

(i) The limited nature of the proprietary interests claimed by Belmont Oil Corporation in various oil leases and properties;

(j) The purported sale by defendant Boren of some 3,900,000 shares of Belmont Oil Corporation to defendant Fox under an alleged contract of sale in October 1958 for $40,000.

The Court hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Findings of Fact

1. Belmont Oil Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada in 1919 under the name of Belmont Divide Mining Company.

2. The charter of the corporation was revoked by the Secretary of State of Nevada in 1924 by reason of failure of the corporation to pay statutory fees.

3. The original capitalization of the corporation consisted of 1,500,000 shares of assessable stock with par value of 10¡é a share.

4. In 1956 the charter of corporation was revived at which time there were' outstanding 350,000 shares of its authorized capital stock.

5. No registration statement is or ever has been in effect or on file with the Commission with respect to shares of either Belmont Divide Mining Company or under its successor name Belmont Oil Corporation.

6. After the charter of said corporation had been revived, an assessment of 5$ a share was caused to be levied upon the outstanding 350,000 shares of stock. The holders of 51,000 shares of the then outstanding stock of the corporation defaulted on the assessment.

7. The beneficial ownership of the balance of the outstanding shares, namely, 299,000 shares had been acquired in one block by W. B. Naismith president of defendant, National Registrar and Transfer Company.

8. W. B. Naismith undertook and purported to meet the assessment on the 51,000 shares then held by others as well as upon the 299,000 shares previously acquired by him by opening an account receivable of $17,500 on the books of the corporation, said sum being equal to the amount of the assessment, i. e., 5$ per share on the then total amount of outstanding shares.

9. Contemporaneously with the revival of the corporation and the purported taking over of the outstanding shares officers and directors were elected for the purpose inter alia of making the corporation available for acquisition by interested parties.

10. In or about the month of November 1957 defendant James B. Boren, entered into negotiations for the acquisi-' [745]*745tion of the corporation through Naismith and others.

11. As a result of said negotiations, said Boren acquired control of the corporation by purchasing the 350,000 shares outstanding.

12. He thereafter calised to be issued to himself an additional 325,000 shares of stock in exchange for transfer by Boren to the corporation of alleged partial and participating interests in two oil leases in Texas, known as the Lokey and Gilmore leases.

13. Contemporaneously with the acquisition by Boren of the 350,000 shares as set out in finding “11” supra, one Vince Schwenoha received 50,000 shares of the aforesaid 350,000 shares; in addition, Schwenoha and his associates received 162,500 shares or half of the 325.000 shares issued to Boren as set out in finding “12” supra. Thus the total outstanding shares were 675,000 of which 212,500 were held by Schwenoha and his associates and the remaining 462,500 shares by Boren and his associates. The defendant Boren was the actual controlling person of all the 675.000 shares of the corporation outstanding immediately subsequent to his acquisition of said corporation.

14. Defendant Boren directed National Registrar and Transfer Company through instructions to its president W. B. Naismith to issue certificates representing 675,000 shares in varying amounts to members of his family, other relatives, friends, business associations (including Schwenoha) and their relatives.

15. On or about November 2, 1957 Boren caused the name of the corporation to be changed from Belmont Divide Mining Company to its present name Belmont Oil Corporation.

16. Continuing to exercise his control of said corporation, Boren caused its capitalization to be changed by increasing the authorized number of shares from 1,500,000 to 15,000,000 shares, reducing the par value per share from 10$ to ljí and by eliminating the assessability of the stock. The total number of shares outstanding was thus increased from 675,000 to 6,750,000-shares.

17. Shortly after this change in the capital structure of the corporation Boren caused the issuance of 1,750,090 shares to his son, Gene A.

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

Related

Brown v. Coen
209 F. Supp. 56 (D. Alaska, 1962)
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Belmont Oil Corp.
185 F. Supp. 739 (S.D. New York, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
185 F. Supp. 743, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/securities-exchange-commission-v-belmont-oil-corp-nysd-1959.