Citations
- 183 F. Supp. 212
Full opinion text
CASHIN, District Judge.
Considered herein are three motions to transfer the venue of this case to the District Court for the Southern District of Alabama under Rule 21(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. Defendants Olen and Mandeville move separately, and defendants Childree, Kerlin and Clements move jointly.
The indictment contain 8 counts. Counts I through V charge a violation of Section 17 of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C.A. § 77q(a)). The counts are all pleaded in the words of the statute and differ only in that separate mailings in each count are charged. Defendant Margaret Mandeville is named as defendant only in Count I.
Section 17 of the Securities Act of 1933, the terms of which are set out in the margin, basically makes it unlawful, in the “offer or sale” of any securities by the use of any interstate instrumentality, to practice any fraud or deceit.
Count VI of the indictment charges a violation of Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.A. § 78n). The terms of Section 14 are set out in the margin. Basically the crime charged is soliciting proxies in respect to a registered security in contravention of Rule 14a-9 of the General Rules and Regulations promulgated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in that a fraudulent proxy statement was utilized. All of the defendants, except Mandeville, are named in this Count.
Count VII charges a violation of the same statute by the filing of a false proxy statement with the Securities Exchange Commission. All of the defendants, except Mandeville, are named in this Count.
Count VIII charges all the defendants with a conspiracy, along with other co-conspirators not named as defendants, to violate both the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Government opposes the motions to transfer on two grounds:
First, that the venue would be improper in the proposed transferee court as to Counts I through VII; and
Second, that in any event the interests cf justice would not be served by such a transfer.
Under the provisions of Rule 21