15 U.S.C. § 77n
Contrary stipulations void
Any condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person acquiring any security to waive compliance with any provision of this subchapter or of the rules and regulations of the Commission shall be void.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 182
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd (1985)
“, at 431, 434-435 ; 15 U. S. C. §§ 77n, 77 l (2), 77v. Wilko 's reasoning cannot be mechanically transplanted to the 1934 Act.”
Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon (1987)
“84 , 15 U. S. C. § 77n, the nonwaiver provision of the Securities Act, applied to § 22(a), 48 Stat.”
Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co. (1974)
“427 , which held that an agreement to arbitrate could not preclude a buyer of a security from seeking a judicial remedy under the Securities Act of 1933, in view of the language of § 14 of that Act, barring "[a]ny condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person acquiring…”
Genesee County Employees' Retirement System v. Thornburg Mortgage Securities Trust (2011)
“They also note that 15 U.S.C. § 77n expressly forbids insulation from liability in the manner that the Defendants now assert.”
Yei Sun v. Advanced China Healthcare (2018)
“” Under 15 U.S.C. § 77n, “[a]ny condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person acquiring any security to waive compliance with any provision of this subchapter or of the rules and regulations of the Commission shall be void.”
Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc. (1989)
“15 U. S. C. § 77n. The Court considered the language, purposes, and legislative history of the Securities Act and concluded that the agreement to arbitrate was void under § 14.”
Southland Corp. v. Keating (1984)
“Congress itself struck a similar balance in § 14 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. C. § 77n, and did not find it necessary to amend the Federal Arbitration Act.”
Keating v. Superior Court (1982)
“182 ], the United States Supreme Court interpreted nearly identical language in section 14 of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. § 77n) [6] to permit suit by a customer against a securities brokerage firm for alleged misrepresentation in the sale of securities,…”
Lone Star Fund v (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC (2010)
“See 15 U.S.C. § 77n; Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. art.”
Gay v. CreditInform (2007)
“2d 526 (1989), the Court addressed the question of whether section 14 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77n, prohibited arbitration of claims brought pursuant to section 12(2) of the Act.”
Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd. (2011)
“" 15 U.S.C. § 77n. Similarly, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provides, "Any condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person to waive compliance with any provision of this chapter or of any rule or regulation thereunder, or of any rule of a self-regulatory…”
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,654 William L. Gunter and Camille S. Gunter v. Theodore M. Hutcheson (1982)
“Tullis and Axelrod, for example, involved claims by the plaintiffs that arbitration clauses in their New York Stock Exchange membership agreements violated the non-waiver provisions of the 1933 and 1934 Acts, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77n, 78cc(a). 22 The courts held that § 28(b) of the 1934…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 77n(a) — 2 cases
Day v. Sebelius (2005)
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.