15 U.S.C. § 777

Economic analysis of proposed actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Scope of analysisIn carrying out the provisions of this chapter, the Administrator shall, to the greatest extent practicable, insure that the potential economic impacts of proposed regulatory and other actions are evaluated and considered, including but not limited to an analysis of the effect of such actions on—(1) the fiscal integrity of State and local governments;(2) vital industrial sectors of the economy;(3) employment, by industrial and trade sectors, as well as on a national, regional, State, and local basis;(4) the economic vitality of regional, State, and local areas;(5) the availability and price of consumer goods and services;(6) the gross national product;(7) low and middle income families as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics;(8) competition in all sectors of industry; and(9) small business.(b) Conservation measures

The Administrator shall develop analyses of the economic impact of various conservation measures on States or significant sectors thereof, considering the impact on both energy for fuel and energy as feed stock for industry.

Such analyses shall, wherever possible, be made explicit, and to the extent possible, other Federal agencies and agencies of State and local governments which have special knowledge and expertise relevant to the impact of proposed regulatory or other actions shall be consulted in making the analyses and all Federal agencies are authorized and directed to cooperate with the Administrator in preparing such analyses: Provided, That the Administrator’s actions pursuant to this section shall not create any right of review or cause of action except as would otherwise exist under other provisions of law.

(d) Monitoring economic impact of energy actions; report and recommendations to Congress

The Administrator, together with the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce, shall monitor the economic impact of any energy actions taken by the Administrator, and shall provide the Congress with an annual report on the impact of the energy shortage and the Administrator’s actions on employment and the economy. Such report shall contain recommendations as to whether additional Federal programs of employment and economic assistance should be put into effect to minimize the impact of the energy shortage and any actions taken.

(e) Industrial or regional discrimination; equal bearing of costs and burdens of meeting energy shortages

The Administrator shall formulate and implement regulatory and other actions in a manner (1) which does not unduly discriminate against any industry or any region of the United States; and (2) designed to insure that, to the greatest extent possible, the costs and burdens of meeting energy shortages shall be borne equally by every sector and segment of the country and of the economy.

(Pub. L. 93–275, § 18, May 7, 1974, 88 Stat. 110; Pub. L. 94–385, title I, § 109(d), Aug. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1130.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1976—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 94–385 substituted “an annual report” for “a report every six months”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesTermination of Reporting Requirements

For termination, effective May 15, 2000, of provisions in subsec. (d) of this section relating to providing an annual report to Congress on the impact of the energy shortage and the Administrator’s actions on employment and the economy, see section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance, and page 84 of House Document No. 103–7.

Transfer of Functions

Federal Energy Administration terminated and functions vested by law in Administrator thereof transferred to Secretary of Energy (unless otherwise specifically provided) by sections 7151(a) and 7293 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 90 cases, 1973–2015 · leading case: Ingenito v. Bermec Corp., 441 F. Supp. 525 (S.D.N.Y. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ingenito v. Bermec Corp., 441 F. Supp. 525 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). · cites it 3× “§ 12(1) of the ’33 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 777 (1). Control persons may be liable as well.”

Richard W. Bosse v. Crowell Collier & MacMillan, 565 F.2d 602 (9th Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “The district court dismissed this count inter alia because subject matter jurisdiction was lacking; the applicable statute of limitations barred plaintiffs’ claims under section 12(2) of the 1933 Securities Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 777 ); plaintiffs’ claim for rescission was barred by…”

Joseph J. LAWLER, Tr. in Bankr. for Frank E. Mower, II, Appellant, v. Thomas W. GILLIAM, Jr. & Gen. Erle Cocke, Jr., Appellees, 569 F.2d 1283 (4th Cir. 1978). · cites it 2× “, based on § 12(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 777 (1), and for liability on their endorsement of two notes under Virginia law.”

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,862 G. A. Thompson & Co., Inc. v. Herbert Partridge, Robert M. Presley, Frank Andrews & C. Thomas Murphy, 636 F.2d 945 (5th Cir. 1981). “15 U.S.C. § 777 . Thus, appellants cannot seek rescission or damages due to the first two transactions in which Lincoln contracted to sell appellee GNMA securities.”

Briggs v. Sterner, 529 F. Supp. 1155 (S.D. Iowa 1981). · cites it 2× “AIDING AND ABETTING LIABILITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF 15 U.S.C. § 777 (1) AND CODE OF IOWA SECTIONS 502.”

Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626 (N.D. Cal. 1978). “§ 78j(b) and sections 12(2) and 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 777 (2) and 77q(a), by engaging in other fraudulent practices all in connection with the sale of the above-mentioned securities.”

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,249 Homer E. Stephenson & Freda Lois Stephenson, His Wife v. Calpine Conifers Ii, Ltd., a Ltd. P'ship, 652 F.2d 808 (9th Cir. 1981). “…Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78j), Rule 10b-5 (17 CFR 240.10b-5), §§ 12, 12(2) and 17(a) of the 1933 Securities Act ( 15 U.S.C. §§ 777 , 777(2), and 77q), California Corporations Code §§ 15021, 25110, 25401, 25501, and 25503 and California Business and Professions Code §§ 10210…”

Rochambeau v. Brent Expl., Inc., 79 F.R.D. 381 (D. Colo. 1978). · cites it 3× “This is a securities case alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 777 (1), and 777(2); the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.”

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,925 Arthur Young & Co. v. United States Dist. Court, Etc., Albert Kaufman, Real Parties in Interest, 549 F.2d 686 (9th Cir. 1977). “…arises out of the Geotek partnership sales. The complaint is based upon § 12(2) and § 17 of the 1933 Securities Act ( 15 U.S.C. §§ 777 (2), 77q), § 10(b) of the 1934 Act, and Rule 10b-5. This plaintiff now contends that his action is also proper under § 11 of the 1933 Act (15…”

Eriksson v. Galvin, 484 F. Supp. 1108 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). · cites it 2× “This is an action tried to the Court for alleged violations of sections 12(1), 12(2) and 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 *1110 (“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 777 (1), 111 (2) and 77q(a)(2), section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Securities Exchange…”

Todd v. Oppenheimer & Co., 78 F.R.D. 415 (S.D.N.Y. 1978). “The ninth claim alleges liability under Sections 12 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 777 and 77q(a), based on the “activities, misstatements and omissions” described above.”

Superintendent of Ins. of New York v. Freedman, 443 F. Supp. 628 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). · cites it 2× “§ 78j(b), and section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the 1933 Act), 15 U.S.C. § 777 . State claims are alleged under N.”

Show all 90 citing cases →

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.