Securities and Exchange Commission v. Arkansas Loan and Thrift Corporation
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision. The 17 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Bankers Life Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (Iowa 1985)
- United States v. Ritchie Capital Management, L.L.C. (8th Cir. 2023)
- Western Bank v. Fluid Assets Development Corp. (N.M. 1991)
- United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. The Heartland Group Ventures, LLC (District Court, N.D. Texas 2024)
- U.S. Securities and Exchange v. Topwater Exclusive Fund III (8th Cir. 2017)
- John W. Bendall, Jr. v. Lancer Management Group, LLC (11th Cir. 2013)
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Pension Fund of America L.C. (11th Cir. 2010)
- Kinzer v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland (Ill. App. Ct. 1995)
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Elliott (11th Cir. 1992)
- Securities And Exchange Commission v. Robert Hardy (9th Cir. 1986)
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Hardy (9th Cir. 1986)
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Safety Finance Service, Inc. (5th Cir. 1982)
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Everest Management Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1980)
- W. T. Hudson v. Grand Deposit Mining Company, a Nevada Corporation (9th Cir. 1972)
- Lem C. Bryan, Receiver v. Ernest A. Bartlett, Jr., Afton Borum, Hoyt Borum, and E. M. Clem, Lem C. Bryan, Receiver v. Gaylord B. Roberson (8th Cir. 1971)
- Benton State Bank v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (8th Cir. 1971)
- Booker Bros. v. American Casualty Co. (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 1971)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This is an appeal from a judgment and order authorizing the equity receiver of Arkansas Loan and Thrift Corporation (A. L. & T.), United Loan and Investment Company and Savings Guaranty Corporation (Savings) to settle a claim against Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, the fidelity bond carrier of A. L. & T. and Savings. The facts involved in this dispute are reported at 297 F.Supp. 73 and need not be discussed here. 1
The appellants claim that the trial court incorrectly interpreted the fidelity bond involved in this case, and therefore erred in approving the settlement.
*1172 Any action by a trial court in supervising an equity receiver is committed to his sound discretion and will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing of abuse. In re Albert Harris, Inc., 6 Cir., 313 F.2d 447, 449; In re California Associated Products Co., 9 Cir., 183 F.2d 946, 949; MacDonald v. Aetna Indemnity Co., 88 Conn. 571, 92 A. 154, 157; Gordon v. Hartford Sterling Co., 319 Pa. 174, 179 A. 234, 237-238. Under this rule, we need not pass on the merits of the trial court’s interpretation of the bond beyond a finding that there has been no abuse of discretion. We have reviewed the record in this case and find. no abuse of discretion in the approval of the receiver’s settlement.
The judgment of the trial court approving the settlement is affirmed.
. For further discussion of this receivership, see 294 F.Supp. 1233, aff’d, 422 F.2d 475.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.