17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-3

Employment of manipulative and deceptive devices by brokers or dealers

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) It shall be unlawful for any broker or dealer, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange, to use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security otherwise than on a national securities exchange, any act, practice, or course of business defined by the Commission to be included within the term “manipulative, deceptive, or other fraudulent device or contrivance”, as such term is used in section 15(c)(1) of the act.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any municipal securities dealer directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange, to use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any municipal security, any act, practice, or course of business defined by the Commission to be included within the term “manipulative, deceptive, or other fraudulent device or contrivance,” as such term is used in section 15(c)(1) of the act.

(Secs. 10, 12, 48 Stat. 891, 892, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 78j, 78l) Cross References:

See also § 240.10b-5. For regulation relating to prohibition of manipulative or deceptive devices, see § 240.10b-1. For the term “manipulative, deceptive, or other fraudulent device or contrivance”, as used in section 15(c)(1) of the act, see §§ 240.15c1-2 to 240.15c1-9.

[13 FR 8183, Dec. 22, 1948, as amended at 19 FR 8017, Dec. 4, 1954; 41 FR 22824, June 7, 1976]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1968–1974 · leading case: Twomey v. Mitchum, Jones & Templeton, Inc., 262 Cal. App. 2d 690 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Twomey v. Mitchum, Jones & Templeton, Inc., 262 Cal. App. 2d 690 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968). “Alleged conflict with federal jurisdiction and law In the course of establishing her case plaintiff introduced into evidence rules 10b-3, 10b-5, 15c1-1, 15c1-2 and 15c1-7 of the General Rules and Regulations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 C.F.R. 240.10b-3, etc.),…”

Cant v. AG Becker & Co., Inc., 374 F. Supp. 36 (N.D. Ill. 1974). “” Failure of a broker-dealer to make the disclosure required by Rule 15cl-4 has been defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission in Rule 10b-3, 17 C. F.R. § 240.10b-3, to be a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance within the meaning of Section 10(b).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.