opinion: John G. BOOKOUT, as receiver for Modern Home Life Insurance Co., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FIRST NATIONAL MORTGAGE AND DISCOUNT COMPANY, INC., and Atlas Financial Corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
  No. 74-3769
  Summary Calendar.
  United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
  May 1, 1975.
  Warren A. Rosser, Chamblee, Ga., for Atlas.
  J. Roger Thompson, H. A. Stephens, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for First Nat’l Mortgage & Discount.
  Warren W. Wills, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., Charles M. Crook, Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
  Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
  Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
  PER CURIAM:
  Following discovery and a conference with the parties, the district court found ' substantial reason to suspect that the Atlas defendants had caused certain collateral to be fraudulently conveyed by, through, and to affiliated corporate defendants, to the probable detriment of a secured party which is the plaintiff in Modern Home Life Ins. Co. v. Atlas Financial Corp., et al., Civ. No. C74 — 302A, now pending before the district court. The court thereupon appointed a receiver pendente lite for the purposes of managing the defendants and marshaling the collateral together with its proceeds.
  We have carefully examined the defendants’-appellants’ objections to the receivership and find them to be without merit. The appointment of a receiver, otherwise proper, is not to be defeated for lack of sworn pleading or the absence of a full evidentiary hearing. See Haase v. Chapman, W.D.Mo.1969, 308 F.Supp. 399. Considering the probability of success on the merits, the appearance of fraudulent conduct, the imminent danger of further injury to the collateral, and the balance of the equities, we are of the opinion that no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated.
  Finding no error, the order appointing the receiver pendente lite is affirmed on the basis of District Judge Freeman’s well-reasoned opinion, 395 F.Supp. 1338 (1974).
  . See 12 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2983, at 22-24.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "financial institution". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: bank insurance savings and loan credit union other pension fund other financial institution or investment company unclear