opinion: The SUSQUEHANNA CORPORATION, (Appellant in No. 15791) v. GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY, D. Emmert Brumbaugh, Harry T. Graham, John E. Hartshorn, Arthur F. Kroeger, David Remer and William B. Walker. General Refractories Company, John E. Hartshorn, and Harry T. Graham, (Appellants in No. 15787).
  Nos. 15787, 15791.
  United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
  Argued Feb. 18, 1966.
  Decided March 2, 1966, but Jurisdiction retained.
  Sidney L. Wickenhaver, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants in No. 15,787 (General Refractories Co., John E. Hartshorn and Harry T. Graham) and appellee in No. 15,791 (Thomas N. O’Neill, Arthur H. Moss, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief).
  H. Francis DeLone, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant in No. 15,791 (Susquehanna Corp.) and appellees in No. 15,787.
  Before McLAUGHLIN, HASTIE and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  We hold that the basic position of recognizing and accepting jurisdiction in this matter by the District Court is sound and that said jurisdiction has been properly exercised. As to the scope of the relief to plaintiff, The Susquehanna Corporation, we agree that it is entitled at this time to the proxy statements and to copies of the minutes of the directors meetings of the General Refractories Company at which the transaction here involved was considered. We will retain plaintiff’s application for certain further specific information in abeyance until after the proxy statements have been made available to plaintiff. In the event the said statements be deemed insufficient by plaintiff it may make application to this Court on notice to the defense for enlargement of the relief allowed. There should be no difficulty in working out a reasonable timetable by and between the parties. If, however, the necessity should arise, either party on notice may bring this element of the case before this Court.
  The order of the District Court of February 11, 1966 is affirmed with respect to Paragraphs 1 and 2. Decision is reserved as to Paragraph 3 of said order.
  Judge Hastie believes that the plaintiff is not entitled to the preliminary proxy material which the defendant General Refractories Company has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and that its right, if any, to other information should be determined by the District Court after the defendant’s proxy material shall have been published and in the light of that publication. Accordingly, Judge Hastie agrees that the plaintiff is not now entitled to the requested additional material and information, but otherwise he dissents from the present disposition of this appeal.
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 "unclear". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto industry chemical industry drug industry food industry oil & gas industry clothing & textile industry electronic industry alcohol and tobacco industry other unclear