15 U.S.C. § 77w
Unlawful representations
Neither the fact that the registration statement for a security has been filed or is in effect nor the fact that a stop order is not in effect with respect thereto shall be deemed a finding by the Commission that the registration statement is true and accurate on its face or that it does not contain an untrue statement of fact or omit to state a material fact, or be held to mean that the Commission has in any way passed upon the merits of, or given approval to, such security. It shall be unlawful to make, or cause to be made to any prospective purchaser any representation contrary to the foregoing provisions of this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1939–2013 · leading case: Robert Eckstein v. Balcor Film Investors, 8 F.3d 1121 (7th Cir. 1993).
Robert Eckstein v. Balcor Film Investors, 8 F.3d 1121 (7th Cir. 1993). “1990); § 23 of the ’33 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77w. Full disclosure of adverse information may lower the price, but it does not exclude the security from the market.”
United States v. Eric Duke, 736 F.3d 439 (6th Cir. 2013). “” 15 U.S.C. § 77w. On this statutory record, two things are clear: Congress frequently differentiates between false statements and omissions, and we should not lightly merge the two.”
A.S. Goldmen & Co., Inc. v. New Jersey Bureau of Sec., Appellant, 163 F.3d 780 (3rd Cir. 1999). “See 15 U.S.C. § 77w (1997) (”[T]he fact that the registration statement for a security has been filed or is in effect .”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Timetrust, Inc., 28 F. Supp. 34 (N.D. Cal. 1939). “23, Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 77w. 37 Stephens v. United States, 9 Cir.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Texas Int'l Co., 498 F. Supp. 1231 (N.D. Ill. 1980). “15 U.S.C. § 77w. Both sections make it “unlawful” for the SEC to make such a representation of accuracy or approval.”
Alter v. Dblkm, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 799 (D. Colo. 1993). “1990); § 23 of the ’33 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77w. Full disclosure of adverse information may lower the price, but it does not exclude the security from the market.”
Oklahoma-Texas Trust v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 100 F.2d 888 (10th Cir. 1939). “§ 77w, which reads as follows: “Neither the fact that the registration statement for a security has been filed or is in effect nor the fact that a stop order is not in effect with respect thereto shall be deemed a finding by the Commission that the registration statement is true…”
United States v. Olen, 183 F. Supp. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 1960). “Again, Section 23, 15 U.S.C.A. § 77w makes it unlawful to represent that the Commission has approved a security; no transmittal of a prospectus or security is necessary to violate this section Similarly, Section 24, 15 U.”
Adelson v. World Transp., Inc., 631 F. Supp. 504 (S.D. Fla. 1986). “15 U.S.C. § 77w. Further, Section *507 22 of the Securities Act and Section 27 of the Exchange Act each indicate that a suit to enforce these laws “may be brought” in wide variety of districts at the discretion of the party bringing the action.”
United States v. Eric Duke, 708 F.3d 722 (6th Cir. 2013). “” 15 U.S.C. § 77w. On this statutory record, two things are clear: Congress frequently differentiates between false statements and omissions, and we should not lightly merge the two.”
Boruski v. Div. of Corp. Fin. of the U. S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 321 F. Supp. 1273 (S.D.N.Y. 1971). “It decided that if a cursory review of the registration statement indicated it was poorly prepared or otherwise presented serious problems, no further review would be made; also, that oral or written comments would not be issued, for to do so would delay the review of other…”
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.