Sub Section - Judgment Search Results
Gabelli Vs. Sec
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-27-2013
J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Gabelli v. SEC - 11-1274 (2013) NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to … Gabelli v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done
Sec Vs. Zandford
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-03-2002
died a few years later, all of the money he had entrusted to respondent was gone. Respondent was subsequently indicted on federal wire fraud charges for, inter alia, selling securities in the Woods' account and making personal … 22, 1994); Zandford v. NASD, Civ. Action No. 93-1274,1993 WL 580761 (D. D. C., Nov. 5,1993)). 819 II Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act makes it "unlawful for any person ... [t]o use or employ, in
Sec Vs. Edwards
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
The District Court concluded that the sale-and-leaseback arrangement was an “investment contract” within the meaning of, and therefore subject to, the federal securities laws. The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that (1) this Court’s opinions require an “investment … rate of return can be an “investment contract” and thus a “security” subject to the federal securities laws. Section 2(a)(1) of the 1933 Act and §3(a)(10) of the 1934 Act define “security” to include an “investment contract,”
18-section briefs on any result in this list
Aaron Vs. Sec
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-02-1980
indicate that Congress intended neither to add to nor detract from the requisite showing of scienter under the substantive provisions at issue. Pp. 446 U. S. 700 -701. 605 F.2d 612, vacated and remanded. STEWART, J., delivered … 2, 1980 446 U.S. 680 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act) makes it unlawful for any person in the offer
Steadman Vs. Sec
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-25-1981
or parts thereof cited by a party and supported by and "in accordance with the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence." Pp. 450 U. S. 95 -97. 2. The SEC properly used the preponderance of the evidence standard … the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws had been violated. Pp. 450 U. S. 97 -104. (a) Section 7(c)'s language implies the enactment of a standard of proof. By allowing sanctions to be imposed only when
Dirks Vs. Sec
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-01-1983
the Commission in its opinion." App. to Pet. for Cert. C-2. Judge Wright, a member of the panel, subsequently issued an opinion. Judge Robb concurred in the result, and Judge Tamm dissented; neither filed a separate opinion. … of guilty or a conviction after trial. See Brief for Petitioner 15; App. 149-153. [ Footnote 5 ] Section 17(a), as set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), provides: "It shall be unlawful for any person in
SEC Vs. Jerry T. O'Brien, Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-18-1984
investigation into possible violations of the federal securities laws involving respondents, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued subpoenas to certain of the respondents for the production of financial records. Ultimately, respondents filed suit in Federal District … SEC v. Jerry T. O'Brien, Inc. - 467 U.S. 735 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court SEC v. Jerry T. O'Brien,
Lowe Vs. Sec
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-10-1985
(also petitioners) were violating the Act, and that Lowe was violating the SEC's order by publishing, for paid subscribers, purportedly semimonthly newsletters containing investment advice and commentary. After determining that petitioners' publications were protected by the First … order revoking the registration of Lowe Management Corporation and barring Lowe from future association with an investment adviser. Section 203(e) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-3(e), authorizes the Commission to revoke the registration of any investment
Sec Vs. New England Elec. Sys.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-16-1966
§ 5, could lawfully retain control over its electric, gas, and other properties. The SEC held that NEES' subsidiaries supplying electricity to retail customers in four New England States composed an "integrated electric utility system," and both … . . ." 79 Cong.Rec. 14479. (Italics supplied.) As the Commission said in 1948: "The legislative history of Section 11(b)(1) indicates that it was the intent of Congress to create only a limited exception to the general
Sec Vs. United Benefit Life Ins. Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-22-1967
decision only as holding that a company, in order to qualify its products as insurance, must bear a substantial part of the investment risk associated with the contract. The court felt that test was satisfied here by … SEC v. United Benefit Life Ins. Co. - 387 U.S. 202 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court SEC v. United Benefit
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »
Hover bars for counts · drag or use +/− to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free