a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining and enjoining Professional and LaBine from further violations of the registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and other equitable relief.  During the hearings on the SEC's motion, the Commission presented both documentary evidence and the testimony of witnesses in support of its allegations.  LaBine and others associated with Professional asserted their fifth amendment privilege and generally refused to testify, offering evidence only on the issue whether the joint ventures were securities.  On May 5, 1982, the district court entered an order which determined that the defendants had engaged and were continuing to engage in conduct which violated the registration and antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchangereliance on the expected efforts and expertise of the defendants.  Therefore, the district court did not err in concluding that the joint ventures were investment contracts.

ESCROW ACCOUNTS

40
We turn, finally, to the district court's conclusion that the units defendants sold in the escrow account were securities.  Since they had voluntarily terminated the escrow account in December 1981, some four months prior to the district court's injunction, the defendants did not, in their appellate brief, contest the injunction as it applied to this account.  In their reply brief, however, they maintain that the district court erred in holding that the units in the account were securities on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence before the district court for it to reach such a decision.  We