SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, APPELLEE,
v.
ARKANSAS LOAN AND THRIFT CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in approving the receiver's settlement of a claim against the fidelity bond carrier.
Appellants challenged the trial court's approval of an equity receiver's settlement of a claim against an insurance company, arguing the court misinte…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fidelity Bond Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
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. 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1556 (11th Cir. 1992)
-
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Hardy, 803 F.2d 1034 (9th Cir. 1986)
-
Lem C. Bryan v. Bartlett, 435 F.2d 28 (8th Cir. 1970)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Cal. Associated Prods. Co. Wil-Rud Corp. v. Lynch, 183 F.2d 946 (9th Cir. 1950)
- Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Bartlett, 422 F.2d 475 (8th Cir. 1970)
- In re Albert-Harris, Inc. v. Woodward, 313 F.2d 447 (6th Cir. 1963)