John G. Bookout, as Receiver for Modern Home Life Insurance Co. v. First National Mortgage and Discount Company, Inc., and Atlas Financial Corporation
John G. BOOKOUT, as Receiver for Modern Home Life Insurance Co., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FIRST NATIONAL MORTGAGE AND DISCOUNT COMPANY, INC., and Atlas Financial Corporation, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Following discovery and a conference with the parties, the district court found ' substantial reason to suspect that the Atlas defendants had caused certain collateral to be fraudulently conveyed by, through, and to affiliated corporate defendants, to the probable detriment of a secured party which is the plaintiff in Modern Home Life Ins. Co. v. Atlas Financial Corp., et al., Civ. No. C74 — 302A, now pending before the district court. The court thereupon appointed a receiver pendente lite for the purposes of managing the defendants and marshaling the collateral together with its proceeds.
We have carefully examined the defendants’-appellants’ objections to the receivership and find them to be without merit. The appointment of a receiver, otherwise proper, is not to be defeated for lack of sworn pleading or the absence of a full evidentiary hearing.
See Haase v. Chapman, W.D.Mo.1969, 308 F.Supp. 399 . Considering the probability of success on the merits, the appearance of fraudulent conduct, the imminent danger of further injury to the collateral, and the balance of the equities, 1
we are of the opinion that no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated.
Finding no error, the order appointing the receiver pendente lite is affirmed on the basis of District Judge Freeman’s well-reasoned opinion, 395 F.Supp. 1338 (1974).
1
.
See 12 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2983, at 22-24.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(affirming the appointment of a receiver after “[c]onsidering the probability of success on the merits, the appearance of fraudulent conduct, the imminent danger of further injury to the collateral, and the balance of the equities”)
-
(“The appointment of a receiver certainly is not made for the purpose of destroying the rights of persons, but rather, that their rights may be made more secure.”)
-
(per curiam; review of appointment is for abuse of discretion)
Cited by 36 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Peyton v. Grant
- United States v. MANSION HOUSE CTR. N. REDEVELOP. CO.
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,301 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Spence & Green Chemical Company and Andrew Spence, Sr.
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. First Financial Group of Texas
- Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Fore River Railway Co.
- Canada Life Assurance Co. v. LaPeter
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.