Skip to Highlights
Highlights

THERE IS ENCLOSED A COPY OF OUR SELF-EXPLANATORY LETTER OF TODAY TO THE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING MIDWEST SUSTAINING OUR PRIOR RULING AGAINST APPLICATION OF THE ANTI-PINKERTON STATUTE TO WACKENHUT SERVICES INCORPORATED. ALL OF WHICH RELATE TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE IS ANY REALITY OF SEPARATE CORPORATE EXISTENCE AS BETWEEN WACKENHUT CORPORATION AND ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY WACKENHUT SERVICES. ENCLOSED ARE THE REPORTERS' TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS AND THE TWO VOLUME TRANSCRIPT OF APPEAL RECORD IN THE CASE OF FEDERAL SERVICES. WHICH WE ARE RETURNING PURSUANT TO YOUR REQUEST.

View Decision

B-153681, MAR. 18, 1965

TO MR. KENNETH C. MCGUINESS:

IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 19, 1965, JOINING IN THE REQUEST MADE ON BEHALF OF MIDWEST BUILDING SERVICES, INC., THAT WE RECONSIDER AND WITHDRAW OUR DECISION B-153681 OF JUNE 22, 1964, THERE IS ENCLOSED A COPY OF OUR SELF-EXPLANATORY LETTER OF TODAY TO THE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING MIDWEST SUSTAINING OUR PRIOR RULING AGAINST APPLICATION OF THE ANTI-PINKERTON STATUTE TO WACKENHUT SERVICES INCORPORATED.

IN LIGHT OF THE CONCLUSIONS EXPRESSED IN THE ENCLOSED LETTER THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY NEED FOR GOING INTO THE SPECIFIC ITEMS DETAILED IN YOUR LETTER, ALL OF WHICH RELATE TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE IS ANY REALITY OF SEPARATE CORPORATE EXISTENCE AS BETWEEN WACKENHUT CORPORATION AND ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY WACKENHUT SERVICES.

ENCLOSED ARE THE REPORTERS' TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS AND THE TWO VOLUME TRANSCRIPT OF APPEAL RECORD IN THE CASE OF FEDERAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED V. ROBERT THALGOTT, ET AL., WHICH WE ARE RETURNING PURSUANT TO YOUR REQUEST.

GAO Contacts