15 U.S.C. § 77i

Court review of orders

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

(a) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Commission may obtain a review of such order in the court of appeals of the United States, within any circuit wherein such person resides or has his principal place of business, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, by filing in such Court, within sixty days after the entry of such order, a written petition praying that the order of the Commission be modified or be set aside in whole or in part. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Commission, and thereupon the Commission shall file in the court the record upon which the order complained of was entered, as provided in section 2112 of title 28. No objection to the order of the Commission shall be considered by the court unless such objection shall have been urged before the Commission. The finding of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive. If either party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce such evidence in the hearing before the Commission, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the Commission and to be adduced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The Commission may modify its findings as to the facts, by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and it shall file such modified or new findings, which, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive, and its recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of the original order. The jurisdiction of the court shall be exclusive and its judgment and decree, affirming, modifying, or setting aside, in whole or in part, any order of the Commission, shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28.(b) The commencement of proceedings under subsection (a) shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the Commission’s order.(May 27, 1933, ch. 38, title I, § 9, 48 Stat. 80; Pub. L. 85–791, § 9, Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 945; Pub. L. 100–181, title II, § 206, Dec. 4, 1987, 101 Stat. 1252.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1987—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–181 substituted “court of appeals” for “Circuit Court of Appeals”, “United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, by filing in such Court” for “Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, by filing in such court”, and “section 1254 of title 28” for “sections 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U.S.C., title 28, secs. 346 and 347)”.

1958—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85–791, in second sentence, substituted “transmitted by the clerk of the court to” for “served upon”, struck out “certify and” before “file in the court”, struck out “a transcript of” after “file in the court”, and inserted “as provided in section 2112 of title 28”.

Executive DocumentsTransfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of Securities and Exchange Commission, with certain exceptions, to Chairman of such Commission, see Reorg. Plan No. 10 of 1950, §§ 1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3175, 64 Stat. 1265, set out under section 78d of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 283 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1935–2026 · leading case: Bandimere v. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 844 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bandimere v. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 844 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “-2- Exercising jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. §§ 77i(a) and 78y(a)(1), we grant Mr.”

Ronald O. Pelletier v. Gary D. Zweifel, Ronald O. Pelletier v. Gary D. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465 (11th Cir. 1991). · cites it 4× “51 Counts three, four, and five alleged that Zweifel, by engaging in such conduct, also committed securities fraud in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 77i (1), (2) 52 and 77q(a), 53 and the Georgia code, Ga.”

Washington Gas Light Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 982 A.2d 691 (D.C. 2009). · cites it 6× “[34] Of those, the closest linguistically to § 604(b) is 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a). That statute provides, "No objection to [an] order of the [Securities and Exchange] Commission shall be considered by the court unless such objection shall have been urged before the [SEC].”

Twin Rivers Paper Co. v. SEC. & Exch. Comm'n, 934 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “See 15 U.S.C. §§ 77i(a), 80a-42(a) ; N.Y. Republican State Comm.”

Malouf v. SEC. & Exch. Comm'n, 933 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “See 15 U.S.C. §§ 77i(a) (Securities Act), 78y(c) (Securities Exchange Act), 80b-13(a) (Investment Advisers Act).”

Lin Zhong v. United States Dep't of Just., Attorney Gen. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2007). “§ 160 (e) (National Labor Relations Act provision proscribing judicial review of any “objection that has not been urged before the Board, its member, agent, or agency”); 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a) (Securities and Exchange Act of 1933 provision providing that judicial review of an order…”

In Re Elec. Data Sys. Corp. \ERISA\" Litig.", 305 F. Supp. 2d 658 (E.D. Tex. 2004). · cites it 3× “1990); see also 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a)(l). Plaintiffs allege that between June, 1996 and November 18, 2002 EDS issued unregistered shares of its stock to the Plan.”

Bernerd Young v. SEC, 956 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “2018) (per curiam) (holding that Rule 26(b)(2) bars tolling of time to file a petition for review of an SEC order under 15 U.S.C. §§ 77i, 78y(a)(1), 80b-13). Amicus for Mr.”

Nolfi v. Ohio Kentucky Oil Corp., 675 F.3d 538 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “After discovery, the Nonneman plaintiffs learned that OKO had engaged in a general solicitation to sell its investments, rendering it unqualified for the SEC filing exemption it had sought, and they filed a second securities claim under § 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933,…”

Steadman v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 450 U.S. 91 (1981). · cites it 2× “[11] Title 15 U. S. C. §§ 77i, 78y, 80a-42, and 80b-13 provide for judicial review of Commission orders in the courts of appeals.”

Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944). · cites it 2× “81 , 15 U.S.C. § 77i; the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat.”

Island Creek Coal Co. v. Melyndia Bryan, 937 F.3d 738 (6th Cir. 2019). “That statute tells courts: “No objection that has not been urged before the [Federal Mine Safety and Health Review] Commission shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances.”

Show all 283 citing cases →

— 15 U.S.C. § 77i(1) — 2 cases

McLernon v. Source Int'l, Inc., 701 F. Supp. 1422 (E.D. Wis. 1988).

Levine v. Diamanthuset, Inc., 722 F. Supp. 579 (N.D. Cal. 1989).

— 15 U.S.C. § 77i(2) — 71 cases

Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561 (1995).

Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622 (1988).

Randall v. Loftsgaarden, 478 U.S. 647 (1986).

Laszlo Adam, Dennis W. Brush, Michael J. Connelly, Jack Weinstein, Marcel Fournier, William S. Kingson v. Eli S. Jacobs, 950 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1991).

Ryder Int'l Corp., a Corp. v. First Am. Nat'l Bank, 943 F.2d 1521 (1st Cir. 1991).

— 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a) — 42 cases

Bandimere v. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 844 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2016). “-2- Exercising jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. §§ 77i(a) and 78y(a)(1), we grant Mr.”

Washington Gas Light Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 982 A.2d 691 (D.C. 2009). “[34] Of those, the closest linguistically to § 604(b) is 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a). That statute provides, "No objection to [an] order of the [Securities and Exchange] Commission shall be considered by the court unless such objection shall have been urged before the [SEC].”

Twin Rivers Paper Co. v. SEC. & Exch. Comm'n, 934 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “See 15 U.S.C. §§ 77i(a), 80a-42(a) ; N.Y. Republican State Comm.”

Malouf v. SEC. & Exch. Comm'n, 933 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir. 2019). “See 15 U.S.C. §§ 77i(a) (Securities Act), 78y(c) (Securities Exchange Act), 80b-13(a) (Investment Advisers Act).”

— 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a)(1) — 1 case

Fencorp, Co. v. Ohio Kentucky Oil Corp., 675 F.3d 933 (6th Cir. 2012).

— 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a)(2) — 58 cases

Repub. Bank & Trust Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co.., Inc., 683 F.3d 239 (6th Cir. 2012).

In Re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 294 F. Supp. 2d 431 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

Rapoport v. Asia Elec. Holding Co., Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 179 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).

AIG Global Sec. Lending Corp. v. Banc of Am. Sec. LLC, 254 F. Supp. 2d 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

In Re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 346 F. Supp. 2d 628 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).

— 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a)(2)(2003) — 1 case

Steed Fin. LDC v. Laser Advisers, Inc., 258 F. Supp. 2d 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

— 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a)(l) — 6 cases

In Re Elec. Data Sys. Corp. \ERISA\" Litig.", 305 F. Supp. 2d 658 (E.D. Tex. 2004). “1990); see also 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a)(l). Plaintiffs allege that between June, 1996 and November 18, 2002 EDS issued unregistered shares of its stock to the Plan.”

Nolfi v. Ohio Kentucky Oil Corp., 675 F.3d 538 (6th Cir. 2012). “After discovery, the Nonneman plaintiffs learned that OKO had engaged in a general solicitation to sell its investments, rendering it unqualified for the SEC filing exemption it had sought, and they filed a second securities claim under § 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933,…”

Cummings v. Paramount Partners, LP, 715 F. Supp. 2d 880 (D. Minnesota 2010).

P. Stolz Fam. P'ship L.P. v. Daum, 355 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2004).

In Re Interbank Funding Corp. Sec. Litig., 432 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2006).

— 15 U.S.C. § 77i(b) — 6 cases

In Re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 346 F. Supp. 2d 628 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).

Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 277 F.R.D. 97 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

Miller v. Thane Int'l, Inc., 519 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2008).

Miller v. Thane Int'l, Inc., 615 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2010).

In Re Morgan Stanley Tech. Fund Sec. Litig., 643 F. Supp. 2d 366 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

— 15 U.S.C. § 77i(l) — 29 cases

Ronald O. Pelletier v. Gary D. Zweifel, Ronald O. Pelletier v. Gary D. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465 (11th Cir. 1991). “51 Counts three, four, and five alleged that Zweifel, by engaging in such conduct, also committed securities fraud in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 77i (1), (2) 52 and 77q(a), 53 and the Georgia code, Ga.”

Robert J. Guidry v. Bank of Laplace, Etc., 954 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1992).

Blatt v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 916 F. Supp. 1343 (D.N.J. 1996).

Ackerman v. Schwartz, 733 F. Supp. 1231 (N.D. Ind. 1989).

Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125 (5th Cir. 1992).

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.