Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,023 United California Bank v. Charles E. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012 (9th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,023 United California Bank v. Charles E. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012 (9th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
88 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 26 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lamont v. Vaquillas Energy Lopeno Ltd. (texapp, 2013-12-11) · Strongest negative: Mooney v. Tallant (gand, 1975-07-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 34 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" Mooney v. Tallant
N.D. Ga. · 1975 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lamont v. Vaquillas Energy Lopeno Ltd.
Tex. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
In general they are means which fall below the generally accepted standards of commercial morality and reasonable conduct.” E.I. duPont deNemours & Co. v. Christopher, 481 F.2d 1012, 1015-16 (5th Cir.1970) (applying Texas law).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnston v. CIGNA Corp.
D. Colo. · 1991 · confidence medium
Compare Gurley v. Documation Inc., 674 F.2d 253, 259 (4th Cir.1982); United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973); Pucci v. Santi, 711 F.Supp. 916, 928 (N.D.Ill.1989); Geeting v. Prizant, 664 F.Supp. 343, 348-50 (N.D.Ill.1987); Estate of Dearing v. Dearing, 646 F.Supp. 903, 908 (S.D.W.Va.1986); Bull v. American Bank & Trust Co., 641 F.Supp. 62, 67-69 (E.D.Pa.1986); Kirschner v. Cable/Tel Corp., 576 F.Supp. 234, 239-40 (E.D.Pa.1983) with Reshal Assoc., Inc. v. Long Grove Trading Co., 754 F.Supp. 1226 (N.D.Ill…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reshal Associates, Inc. v. Long Grove Trading Co.
N.D. Ill. · 1990 · confidence medium
Cases which have found or suggested that borrowed statutes of repose are subject to federal tolling principles include United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.1973) (suggesting that if statute of repose were borrowed for § 10(b) actions, it could be extended by federal tolling), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973); Pucci, 711 F.Supp. at 928 (amended ¶ 137.13D can be extended by federal tolling); Geeting v. Prizant, 664 F.Supp. 343, 349-50 (N.D.Ill. 1987) (Aspen, J.) (same); and Kirschner v. Cable/Tel Corp., 576 F.Supp. 234, 240 (E.D.Pa.198…
cited Cited as authority (rule) David K. Lindemuth Co. v. Shannon Financial Corp.
N.D. Cal. · 1987 · confidence medium
United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1014-15 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,436 Susan C. Semegen v. Stephen M. Weidner, and Robert Alexander, Alexander & Rosenberg, David B. Winder, and Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., Susan C. Semegen v. Stephen M. Weidner, and Jan Mirsky and Daniel Topper
9th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Indeed, this court has stated that "the broad remedial policies of the federal securities laws are best served by a longer, not a shorter, statute of limitations." United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.1973). 32 The Arizona statute of limitations for common law fraud provides for a three-year limitation with the cause of action accruing on the date of discovery.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Semegen v. Weidner
9th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Indeed, this court has stated that “the broad remedial policies of the federal securities laws are best served by a longer, not a shorter, statute of limitations.” United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maiden v. Biehl
S.D.N.Y. · 1984 · confidence medium
In a case of first impression as to which Swiss period to apply, that option would be inconsistent with the “broad remedial policies of the federal securities laws,” which “ ‘are best served by a longer, not shorter statute of limitations.’ ” Berry Petroleum Co. v. Adams & Peck, 518 F.2d 402, 409 (2d Cir.1975) (quoting United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hill v. Equitable Trust Co. (2×) also: Cited "see"
D. Del. · 1983 · confidence medium
Although most Circuit Court of Appeals have firmly established which of these alternatives govern a 10b-5 claim, compare Clegg v. Conk, 507 F.2d 1351, 1353 (10th Cir.1974) (statute of limitations for fraud applies), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1007 , 95 S.Ct. 2628 , 45 L.Ed.2d 669 (1975); United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973), with O’Hara v. Kovens, 625 F.2d 15 , 18 (4th Cir.1980) (statute of limitations for Blue Sky actions applies), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1124 , 101 S.Ct. 939 , 67 L.Ed.2d 109 (1…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) David L. Wood, R. E. Evans, Tommy J. Head and David Tirey, Jr. v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
See Berry Petroleum, 518 F.2d at 409 (2d Cir.); Nickels v. Koeh fer Management Corp., 541 F.2d 611, 618 (6th Cir. 1976); IDS Progressive Fund, Inc. v. First of Michigan, 533 F.2d 340, 344 (6th Cir. 1976); United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robert P. BIGGANS, Appellant, v. BACHE HALSEY STUART SHIELDS, INC., F/T/A Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc. (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1981 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. United Cal. Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blue Sky L. Rep. P 71,586, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,632 Joseph A. Carothers v. W. Thomas Rice (2×)
6th Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
In addition, see United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973); but see Fox v. Kane-Miller Corp., 542 F.2d 915 (4th Cir. 1976). 32 The present case does not involve a state blue sky law which precludes implied remedies similar to those implied under rule 10b-5.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Interlox Punch & Die Corp. v. Insilco Corp.
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 1980 · confidence medium
United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F. 2d 1012, 1015 (9 Cir.1975), cert. den., 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed. 2d 240 (1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dandorph v. Fahnestock & Co.
D. Conn. · 1979 · confidence medium
E. g., Sixth Circuit, IDS Progressive Funds, Inc. v. First of Michigan Corp., 533 F.2d 340, 342-44 (6th Cir. 1976); Ninth Circuit, United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1014-15 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973); Tenth Circuit, Clegg v. Conk, 507 F.2d 1351, 1353 (10th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1007 , 95 S.Ct. 2628 , 45 L.Ed.2d 669 (1975). 6 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fuls v. Shastina Properties, Inc.
N.D. Cal. · 1978 · confidence medium
United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9 Cir.) cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973); Turner v. Lundquist, 377 F.2d 44, 47 (9 Cir. 1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) IDS Progressive Fund, Inc. v. First of Michigan Corp.
6th Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
Moreover, we agree that “the broad remedial policies of the federal securities laws are best served by a longer, not a shorter statute of limitation.” United California Bank v. Salik, supra at 1015; Berry Petroleum v. Adams & Peck, 518 F.2d 402, 409 (2d Cir. 1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Henry Hilton v. Richard Henry Mumaw and Bethel Mumaw, His Wife and the Marital Community Composed Thereof, Anthony Hilton v. Richard Henry Mumaw and Bethel Mumaw, His Wife and the Marital Community Composed Thereof, Anthony Hilton v. Richard Henry Mumaw and Bethel Mumaw, His Wife and the Marital Community Composed Thereof, Anthony Hilton v. Richard Henry Mumaw and Bethel Mumaw, His Wife and the Marital Community Composed Thereof
9th Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1014-15 (9th Cir.), Cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973); Douglass v. Glenn E.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hilton v. Mumaw
9th Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1014-15 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973); Douglass v. Glenn E.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Blue Sky L. Rep. P 71,223, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,220 Berry Petroleum Company, an Arkansas Corp. (Dissolved) v. Adams & Peck
2d Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fox v. Kane-Miller Corp. (2×)
D. Maryland · 1975 · confidence medium
Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332, 336 , 88 S.Ct. 548 , 19 L.Ed.2d 564 (1967); SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, 375 U.S. 180, 186 , 84 S.Ct. 275 , 11 L.Ed.2d 237 (1963); Herpich v. Wallace, 430 F.2d 792, 801 (5th Cir. 1970). “[T]he broad remedial policies of the federal securities laws are best served by a longer, not a shorter, statute of limitation.” (Footnotes omitted.) United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1974).
discussed Cited "see" Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,640 John William Davis v. Birr, Wilson & Co., Inc., a California Corporation, Defendants (2×)
9th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See, United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973); Sackett v. Beaman, 399 F.2d 884, 890-91 (9th Cir.1968); Turner v. Lundquist, [ 377 F.2d 44 (9th Cir.1967) ].
discussed Cited "see" Bresson v. Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Berry Petroleum Co. v. Adams & Peck, supra, 518 F.2d at 409 (“[T]he broad remedial policies of the federal securities laws are best served by a longer, not a shorter, statute of limitations.”) (quoting United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973)).
discussed Cited "see" Dahl v. Gardner
D. Utah · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1014-15 (9th Cir.), cert. den., 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973); Brown v. Producers Livestock Loan Co., 469 F.Supp. 27, 30 (D.Utah 1978).
cited Cited "see" Kirschner v. Cable/Tel Corp.
E.D. Pa. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973); see also Biggans, supra, 638 F.2d at 607, n. 3 .
cited Cited "see" Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,722 Securities and Exchange Commission v. The Seaboard Corporation, Etc., Admiralty Fund and Admiralty Fund Growth Series Litigation Trust, Cross-Claimant/appellant v. Hugh Johnson & Company, Inc., Hugh Johnson, Norman Michael Keiser, and Ernst& Ernst, Cross-Defendants/appellees
9th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973).
cited Cited "see" Securities & Exchange Commission v. Seaboard Corp.
9th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973).
cited Cited "see" Townsend v. Columbia Operations
9th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973).
cited Cited "see" Townsend v. Columbia Operations
9th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973).
discussed Cited "see" Hill v. Der
D. Del. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012 (C.A.9), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973); Williams v. Sinclair, 529 F.2d 1383 (C.A.9,1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 936 , 96 S.Ct. 2651 , 49 L.Ed.2d 388 (1976); Clegg v. Conk, 507 F.2d 1351 (C.A.10, 1974), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1007 , 95 S.Ct. 2628 , 45 L.Ed.2d 669 (1975).
cited Cited "see" Woods v. Homes & Structures of Pittsburg, Kansas, Inc.
D. Kan. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012 (9th Cir. 1973); Douglass v. Glenn E.
discussed Cited "see" Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,379 John D. Robuck v. Dean Witter & Co., Inc., a Corporation, John D. Robuck v. Dean Witter & Co., Inc., a Corporation
9th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See, United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973); Sackett v. Beaman, 399 F.2d 884, 890-91 (9th Cir. 1968); Turner v. Lundquist, supra. To the extent that some of the exchange rules require “due diligence” on the part of a broker, rather than merely refraining from fraudulent acts, any cause of action arising under them would be barred by the two-year state statute of limitations for negligence, Cal.Civ.Proc.
cited Cited "see" Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,895 Margaret Morris v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., and Kingsley O. Wright, Sr., Mary A. Braun v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., Kingsley O. Wright, and Theodore Menas
8th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.), Cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973).
cited Cited "see" Morris v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co.
8th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973).
cited Cited "see" Briskin v. Ernst & Ernst
C.D. Cal. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See United California Bank v. Salik, 481 F.2d 1012 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied 414 U.S. 1004 , 94 S.Ct. 361 , 38 L.Ed.2d 240 (1973).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED CALIFORNIA BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Charles E. SALIK Et Al., Defendants-Appellants
72-2140.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 17, 1973.
481 F.2d 1012
Jack W. Crumley (argued), of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, San Diego, Cal., Alan R. Bromberg (argued), Dallas, Tex., John C. Stiska, Michael L. Kirby, of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, San Diego, Cal., Joel H. Pullen, of Davis, O’Connor & Pullen, San Antonio, Tex., for defendants-appellants., William W. Vaughn (argued), Warren Cristopher, B. Boyd Hight, Jr., of O’Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, Cal., Sullivan, Jones, Archer & Brucher, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Hufstedler, Trask, Wallace.
Cited by 63 opinions  |  Published
WALLACE, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-appellee, United California Bank (UCB),. sued in district court alleging a violation of federal securities law and a claim for breach of warranty under state law. Defendants-appellants are residents of the United States and former shareholders of the Salik Bank in Basel, A.G., a corporation organized under the laws of Switzerland.

The complaint stated that UCB had purchased the defendants’ shares of stock in May, 1969, pursuant to a previously-executed purchase agreement. UCB also alleged that after August, 1970, it learned that the Salik Bank (by then, UCB-Basel) had incurred undisclosed losses of more than $40,000,000, primarily as a result of unauthorized trading in commodities. UCB claims that it was forced to discontinue operations at the Swiss bank, that UCB-Basel was insolvent and that it is now in the process of liquidation. UCB’s complaint, filed February 16, 1972, attributed these results and its damages to the defendants’ actions.

In the district court, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the federal claim was barred by the statute of limitations’ period specified in Cal.Corp.Code § 25506. [1] The trial judge denied the motion, holding instead that the applicable statute of limitation was[*1014] found in Cal.Code Civ.P. § 338. [2] However, he certified that his order involved a controlling question of law and this court granted permission for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). We affirm.

UCB’s federal claim alleges a violation of section 10(b) [3] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (hereinafter Act) and rule 10b-5 [4] promulgated thereunder. The Act does not contain a statute of limitation applicable to section 10(b) and federal courts have consistently rejected attempts to apply to section 10(b) other statutes of limitation found in the Act and in the Securities Act of 1933. [5] When, as in a case such as this, the statute is silent, we look to “an appropriate local law of limitations.” [6]

In previous 10b-5 eases, we have applied the applicable state statute of limitations for fraud. Errion v. Connell, 236 F.2d 447, 455 (9th Cir. 1956); Fratt v. Robinson, 203 F.2d 627, 634 (9th Cir. 1953). Relying upon Errion and Fratt, we have adopted the California general fraud limitations period, Code Civ.P. § 338, for securities fraud cases arising in that state. Hecht v. Harris, Upham & Co., 430 F.2d 1202, 1210 (9th Cir. 1970); Sackett v. Beaman, 399 F.2d 884, 890 (9th Cir. 1968); Turner v. Lundquist, 377 F.2d 44, 46 (9th Cir. 1967).

However, in Douglass v. Glenn E. Hinton Investments, Inc., 440 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1971), we were faced with a choice between the Washington fraud statute adopted in Fratt and Errion, supra, and a special limitations statute for securities fraud enacted in the interim. We adhered to our selection of the former. 440 F.2d at 915-16.

Now we are again confronted by similar alternatives. Since the occurrence of the facts supporting the claims in Turner, Sackett, and Hecht, supra, the California legislature has enacted a statute of limitations for actions brought pursuant to a state statute similar to section 10(b). The defendants urge this court to reject our previous decisions and to adopt the new statute, Cal.Corp. Code § 25506. [7] We decline to do so for several reasons.

[*1015] First, as we noted in Douglass, supra:

[F]or us to change the applicable limitation period because the local law of securities regulation has changed would add an unnecessary uncertainty to the prosecution of federal claims under section 10(b). We do not believe federal policy is advanced by changing the law governing the timeliness of federal claims to correspond with each change in the substantive elements of a claim under the local securities law. Aggrieved persons have come to rely upon our prior holdings. Reasonable stability in laws pertaining to voluntary relationships between parties, and the right of access to the courts to question those relationships, is a worthwhile objective as well.

440 F.2d at 916. Second, the broad remedial policies of the federal securities laws [8] are best served by a longer, not a shorter, statute of limitation. [9] Under our prior rulings, a California resident may sue within three years of discovery of the fraud. Under the statute advanced, he would have only one year from discovery.

Finally, adoption of the new California statute would necessarily be piecemeal. The statute provides that a suit may be brought within one year of discovery of the violation but in no case more than four years after its occurrence. Federal policy provides that a statute of limitations shall not run until the fraud is, or should be, discovered. [10] In the case of a fraud discovered more than three, but less than four, years after the occurrence, strict application of the California statute would afford only the balance of the fourth year within which to sue. More importantly, a fraud discovered over four years after its occurrence would be completely barred. [11] To obviate this inconsistency with federal policy, we could judicially amend [12] the California statute by eliminating the four-year maximum. Alternatively, we could eliminate the one-year provision but amend the four-year provision to commence upon discovery. However, piecemeal adoption of the new statute is hardly preferable to continued utilization of the older fraud statutes. Therefore, as in Douglass, we adhere to our prior decisions in Turner, Sackett, and Hecht, supra, and hold that Code Civ.P. § 338 is the statute applicable to section 10(b) actions in California.

We recognize that there is no answer that is entirely satisfactory and we doubt any will be forthcoming unless Congress enacts a federal limitations statute specifically applicable to such actions. [13]

Affirmed.

1

. Section 25506 provides:

No action shall be maintained to enforce any liability created under Section 25500, 25501, or 25502 (or Section 25504 insofar as it relates to those sections) unless brought before the expiration of four years after the act or transaction constituting the violation or the expiration of one year after the discovery by the plaintiff of the facts constituting the violation, whichever shall first expire.

Since UCB brought this action some eighteen months after the alleged discovery, application of § 25506 could conceivably bar its suit.

2

. Section 338 provides in part: Within three years:

4. An action for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake. The cause of action in such case not to be deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.

The present action was probably timely under the provisions of this section.

4

. 17 C.F.B. § 240.10b-5.

5

. 15 U.S.C. §§ 77a-77aa. See, e. g., Douglass v. Glenn E. Hinton Investments, Inc., 440 F.2d 912, 914 (9th Cir. 1971) ; Janigan v. Taylor, 344 F.2d 781, 783 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 879, 86 S.Ct. 163, 15 L.Ed.2d 120 (1965).

6

. Douglass, supra, note 5, at 914. See Sackett v. Beaman, 399 F.2d 884, 890 890 (9th Cir. 1968). See also UAW v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U.S. 696, 703-05, 86 S.Ct. 1107, 16 L.Ed.2d 192 (1966) ; Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 395, 66 S.Ct. 582, 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946).

7

. Faced with analogous choices, other circuits have recently chosen the securities statute of limitations rather than that of general fraud. See Parrent v. Midwest Rug Mills, Inc., 455 F.2d 123 (7th Cir. 1972) ; Vanderboom v. Sexton, 422 F.2d 1233 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 852, 91 S.Ct. 47, 27 L.Ed.2d 90 (1970). But see Charney v. Thomas, 372 F.2d 97 (6th Cir. 1967).

However, they have also determined that the adopted state statute shall only run in accordance with the federal law which decrees that the statute does not begin to run until the fraud is, or should be, discovered. Parrent, supra at 128; Vanderboom, supra at 1240. Accord Janigan v. Taylor, 344 F.2d 781 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 879, 86 S.Ct. 163, 15 L.Ed.2d 120 (1965). See also Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 66 S.Ct. 582, 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946) ; Bailey v. Glover, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 342, 22 L.Ed. 636 (1875).

8

. See J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 431-32, 84 S.Ct. 1555, 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1964) ; SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U.S. 180, 195, 84 S.Ct. 275, 11 L.Ed.2d 237 (1963).

9

. See Azalea Meats, Inc. v. Muscat, 386 F.2d 5, 8 (5th Cir. 1967) ; Beefy Trail, Inc. v. Beefy King Int’l, Inc., 348 F.Supp. 799, 803 (M.D.Fla.1972).

10

. See note 7, supra.

11

. See note 1, supra.

12

. See note 7, supra.

13

. However, even if Congress is so disposed, it may wait until it receives The American Law Institute’s proposed Federal Securities Code. Professor Louis Loss, the reporter for the project, currently estimates that the ALI Code will reach Congress in 1976 or 1977. Federal Securities Code, Introductory Memorandum at xv (Ten. Draft No. 2, 1973). Section 1421 of the draft contains proposed federal statutes of limitations for the remedies provided by the Code.