opinion: Per Curiam.
  Being convinced on the record before us that Maleo Refineries, Inc., was not a “failing company,” United States v. Third National Bank, 390 U. S. 171, 183 (1968); International Shoe Co. v. FTC, 280 U. S. 291 (1930), and that the record otherwise supports the decree, United States v. Pabst Brewing Co., 384 U. S. 546 (1966), we affirm the judgment of the District Court.
  Mr. Justice Harlan, believing that this case involves issues of fact and law which should not be decided without plenary consideration, would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument.
  Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
choices: case did not arise on cert or cert not granted federal court conflict federal court conflict and to resolve important or significant question putative conflict conflict between federal court and state court state court conflict federal court confusion or uncertainty state court confusion or uncertainty federal court and state court confusion or uncertainty to resolve important or significant question to resolve question presented no reason given other reason