From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harwell v. Growth Programs, Inc

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Apr 11, 1972
459 F.2d 461 (5th Cir. 1972)

Opinion

No. 30501.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc April 11, 1972.

Teairl W. Lewis, Clarence R. Boatwright, San Antonio, Tex., Fiorenzo V. Lopardo, Robert A. Hefner, Escondido, Cal., Paul Gonson, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Kathryn B. McGrath, Atty., Warren G. Stolusky, Philip A. Loomis, Jr., Gen. Counsel, David Ferber, Sol., Securities Exchange Comm., Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs-appellants.

James D. Baskin, Jr., Lionel R. Fuller, San Antonio, Tex., Joel H. Pullen, San Antonio, Tex., Frank J. Wilson, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before COLEMAN, SIMPSON and RONEY, Circuit Judges.


ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND PETITIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC


The opinion of the Court, dated October 15, 1971, is modified by deleting therefrom the sentence [ 451 F.2d 240, at 247]. If on remand the proof should show that defendants have taken actions which violate the anti-trust laws, and if, in accordance with the principles of Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U.S. 341, 83 S.Ct. 1246, 10 L.Ed.2d 389 (1962), the district court should find that the purposes of the Maloney Act do not require that these actions be cloaked with anti-trust immunity, then the mere supervisory presence of the SEC cannot divest the courts of their power to enforce the antitrust laws. Thill Securities Corporation v. New York Stock Exchange, 433 F.2d 264 (7th Cir. 1970).

"The extent of that supervision is not readily apparent from the record."

We reemphasize that our decision is not intended to suggest the ultimate determination of the facts in this case or to intimate any opinion on the merits of plaintiffs' antitrust claim. Those determinations are for the district court.

The Petitions for Rehearing are denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petitions for Rehearing En Banc are denied.


Summaries of

Harwell v. Growth Programs, Inc

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Apr 11, 1972
459 F.2d 461 (5th Cir. 1972)
Case details for

Harwell v. Growth Programs, Inc

Case Details

Full title:NORMAN L. HARWELL ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. GROWTH PROGRAMS, INC.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Apr 11, 1972

Citations

459 F.2d 461 (5th Cir. 1972)

Citing Cases

Patten Sec. v. Diamond Greyhound Genetics

This contention is without merit, however, because the issuance of an interpretative statement is a…

In re Mutual Fund Sales Antitrust Litigation

373 U.S. at 358 n. 12, 83 S.Ct. at 1257.But see Harwell v. Growth Programs, Inc., 451 F.2d 240 (5th Cir.…