1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 212 F.3d
  5. 212 F.3d 180 (2000)
 

U.S. S.E.C. v. INFINITY GROUP CO.

Nos. 98-1215, 98-1216, 98-1217.

212 F.3d 180 (2000)

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. The INFINITY GROUP COMPANY; Geoffrey P. Benson; Geoffrey J. O'Connor; Futures Holding Company; SLB Charitable Trust; Susan L. Benson; JGS Trust; Lindsey Springer; Bondage Breaker Ministries Lindsey Springer; Bondage Breaker Ministries, Third-party Plaintiffs v. The Union States of the Constitution, i.e.; Alaska; Alabama; Arkansas; Arizona; California; Colorado; Connecticut; Delaware; Florida; Georgia; Hawaii; Iowa; Illinois; Indiana; Kansas; Kentucky; Louisiana; Massachusetts; Maryland; Maine; Michigan; Minnesota; Missouri; Mississippi; Montana; North Carolina; North Dakota; Nebraska; New Hampshire; New Jersey; New Mexico; Nevada; New York; Ohio; Oklahoma; Oregon; Pennsylvania; Rhode Island; South Carolina; South Dakota; Tennessee; Texas; Utah; Virginia; Vermont; Wisconsin; West Virginia; Wyoming; Washington; Federal District of Columbia, Third-Party Defendants Geoffrey J. O'Connor (98-1215), Geoffrey P. Benson (98-1216), Susan L. Benson, Pro Se on Behalf of Herself in Her Representative Capacity on Behalf of SLB Charitable Trust, Futures Holding Company and JGS Trust (98-1217), Appellants

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Filed: May 4, 2000

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Richard L. Scheff (Argued), Montgomery, McCraken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellants.

Harvey J. Goldschmid, Richard M. Humes, Samuel M. Forstein, Timothy N. McGarey (Argued), Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, for Appellee United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

J. Bradford McIlvain, Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish & Kauffman, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee Robert F. Sanville.

Mr. Lindsey K. Springer, Pro Se (Argued), Tulsa, OK.

Before: ALITO and McKEE, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARTZ, District Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

McKEE, Circuit Judge.

Defendants appeal the grant of a permanent injunction in this civil action for securities fraud. The defendants argue that the instruments that they offered to investors were not "securities" under federal law, and that the district court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The defendants also challenge certain evidentiary and procedural rulings that the district court made during the hearing on the motion...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases