Securities and Exchange Commission, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Ks Resources; John K. Judd, Jr.; Mid-west Production,inc.; Weststar Exploration, Inc.; Mark D. Seigel;alexander L. Kahan; Guardian Industries, Inc., Pathfinderminerals Group, Inc.; Alex Kahan Enterprises, Inc.,defendants-appellants, 110 F.3d 69 (9th Cir. 1997)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 110 F.3d 69 (9th Cir. 1997) Submitted March 24, 1997. *Decided March 27, 1997

Before: SNEED, FARRIS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Appellants appeal the district court's interlocutory order appointing a permanent receiver in the Securities and Exchange Commission's action alleging violations of federal securities laws. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (2), and we affirm.

Appellants contend that the district court lacked jurisdiction to appoint a receiver in a civil enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission. This contention lacks merit.

This court has "repeatedly approved imposition of a receivership in appropriate circumstances."1  Securities & Exch. Comm'n v. Wencke, 622 F.2d 1363, 1369 (9th Cir. 1980). Moreover, contrary to appellants' argument, " [t]he power of a district court to impose a receivership ... does not in the first instance depend on a statutory grant of power from the securities laws. Rather, the authority derives from the inherent power of a court of equity to fashion effective relief." Id. We conclude that Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164 (1994), does not apply because it limits a right of action rather than a court's jurisdiction to order equitable relief.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's interlocutory order appointing a permanent receiver.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

 1

Appellants do not challenge the district court's factual findings in making its ruling

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.