15 U.S.C. § 77a
Short title
This subchapter may be cited as the “Securities Act of 1933”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 982
cases (83 in the last 5 years), 1935–2026 · leading case: Liu v. SEC. & Exch. Comm'n, 140 S. Ct. 1936 (2020).
Liu v. SEC. & Exch. Comm'n, 140 S. Ct. 1936 (2020). “74 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. §77a et seq., and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat.”
Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185 (1976). “, was designed to provide investors with full disclosure of material information concerning public offerings of securities in commerce, to protect investors against fraud and, through the imposition of specified civil liabilities, to promote ethical standards of honesty and fair…”
Sec. Indus. Ass'n v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 468 U.S. 137 (1984). “74 , 15 U. S. C. § 77a et seq.; the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat.”
Cent. Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994). “74 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 77a et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp.”
Cianci v. Superior Court, 710 P.2d 375 (Cal. 1985). “Finally, the existence of a comprehensive enforcement scheme does not in itself require uniformity and exclusive federal jurisdiction: for example, the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. § 77a et seq.) establishes such a scheme ( id.”
Santa Fe Indus., Inc. v. Green, 430 U.S. 462 (1977). “" [10] The court below construed the term "fraud" in Rule 10b-5 by adverting to the use of the term in several of this Court's decisions in contexts other than the 1934 Act and the related Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. C. § 77a et seq. [11] The Court *472 of Appeals' approach…”
Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622 (1988). “74 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 77a et seq., for the rescission of the sale of unregistered securities, and (b) whether one must intend to confer a benefit on himself or on a third party in order to qualify as a "seller" within the meaning of § 12(1).”
Caplin v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co. of New York, 406 U.S. 416 (1972). “74 , 15 U. S. C. § 77a et seq., certain information about the indenture trustee and the terms of the indenture *426 must be included in the registration statement.”
Panircelvan Kaliannan v. Ee Liang, 2 F.4th 727 (8th Cir. 2021). “Plaintiffs filed a complaint and then an amended complaint in the district court, alleging that Defendant violated the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77a et seq. (Count 1); the North Dakota Securities Act, N.”
Tongue v. Sanofi, 816 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2016). “(the “Exchange Act”); §§ 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of' 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77a et seq. (the “Securities Act”); and state blue sky laws.”
Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth, 471 U.S. 681 (1985). “Petitioner then filed this suit seeking rescission of the sale of stock and $2,500,000 in damages, alleging that respondents had widely offered and then sold their stock without registering it as required by the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. C. § 77a et seq. (1933 Act).…”
Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd. v. Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. Petrobras, 862 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. 2017). “; and the second asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77a et seq. 3 On appeal, the Pe-trobras Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants (collectively, “Appellants”) contest the Certification Order on two grounds.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 77a(a) — 3 cases
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,017 Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, & Cross-Appellant v. Brigadoon Scotch Distrib. Co., & Cross-Appellees, 480 F.2d 1047 (2d Cir. 1973).
United States v. William T. Holsman, 238 F.2d 141 (7th Cir. 1956).
United States v. Monas, 178 F. App'x 68 (2d Cir. 2006).
— 15 U.S.C. § 77a(a)(1) — 1 case
SEC v. Patel, et al., 2009 DNH 143 (D.N.H. 2009).
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.