Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04015/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04015-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

V-1 OIL COMPANY, an Idaho 

corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

AUG 171989 

ROBERT t,, HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ALPHA TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Utah ) 

No. 89-4015 

(D.C. No. 86-C-0809S) 

(D. Utah) 

corporation, BRUCE R. BRITTAIN; ) 

ROCK T. BALLSTAEDT; JONATHAN M. ) 

RUGA; 1555 CANYON ROAD PARTNERSHIP, ) 

a Utah limited partnership; CHARLES) 

W. AKERLOW; COMFORT INN PARTNERSHIP,) 

a Utah limited partnership; HOTEL/ ) 

MOTEL MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, ) 

INC., a Utah coroporation; KMG MAIN) 

HURDMAN, a general partnership; ) 

GRANT CALDWELL and ROGER RICHINS, ) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, TACHA, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This appeal is from an order of the district court granting 

the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the ground that 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-4015 Document: 01019975945 Date Filed: 08/17/1989 Page: 1 
.... 

the transaction in this case did not involve a security and 

therefore was not subject to the federal securities laws. The 

sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in its 

finding that the transaction did not involve a security. 

We agree with the district court that the transaction 

contemplated by the parties here was essentially a commercial 

purchase and leaseback transaction and did not involve a security 

within the definition established by the United States Supreme 

Court in S.E.C. Y.!_ W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946). The 

district court therefore correctly granted the defendants' motions 

for summary judgment. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

AFFIRMED. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-4015 Document: 01019975945 Date Filed: 08/17/1989 Page: 2