Court Opinion

ID: 9540224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:13:49.167642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:44.700918
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING Mr. JUSTICE LINN delivered the opinion of the court: In its petition for rehearing, Calvert urges us to reconsider our position in confining our examination to the pleadings in this case. It is contended that if the entire record were reviewed, a different conclusion would be reached. However, our holding would not be affected by such a review. Were the whole record to be considered, Calvert would be allowed to raise two additional issues. Throughout these proceedings, Calvert has urged that the affidavit submitted by its president establishes that the arrangement between the parties was not regulated. The affidavit contains the statement: “The relationship between Amreco and the insurers participating in the Pool is not subject to any regulation by the State Insurance Department of Illinois.” We do not believe that a legal conclusion by an affiant interested in the present litigation can be conclusive on this issue. Furthermore, we note that the affidavit was made a part of the record in this case on August 5, 1975, several weeks subsequent to the dismissal by the trial court on June 16,1975. Therefore, its submission was not offered in a timely manner and could not have been considered even if the entire record were reviewed. The second issue which Calvert contends should be considered is that the agreement must be judged as that which Amreco represented it to be. It is asserted that Amreco used the terms “profits” and “investment,” in its dealings with Calvert, and therefore the participatory interest should be held to be a security. We do not see the relevance of Amreco’s use of the word “profits,” since many undertakings, other than investments, are entered into with an expectation that the venture will prove profitable. Also, an examination of the record reveals that only after Calvert had entered into the pool did Amreco colloquially describe the arrangement as an investment. Although it is not inappropriate that an offering be judged as being what it is represented to be (Securities & Exchange Com. v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp. (1943), 320 U.S. 344, 88 L. Ed. 88, 64 S. Ct. 120), such a standard is inapplicable in a case such as the present one. Calvert was not induced to enter into the pool due to any representation by Amreco that participation constituted an investment. Since these points raised by Calvert do not affect the outcome of this case, the judgment of the trial court stands as stated in our opinion and the Petition for Rehearing is denied. DIERINGER, P. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.