15 U.S.C. § 78aa

Jurisdiction of offenses and suits

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

(a) In general

The district courts of the United States and the United States courts of any Territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction of violations of this chapter or the rules and regulations thereunder, and of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by this chapter or the rules and regulations thereunder. Any criminal proceeding may be brought in the district wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation occurred. Any suit or action to enforce any liability or duty created by this chapter or rules and regulations thereunder, or to enjoin any violation of such chapter or rules and regulations, may be brought in any such district or in the district wherein the defendant is found or is an inhabitant or transacts business, and process in such cases may be served in any other district of which the defendant is an inhabitant or wherever the defendant may be found. In any action or proceeding instituted by the Commission under this chapter in a United States district court for any judicial district, a subpoena issued to compel the attendance of a witness or the production of documents or tangible things (or both) at a hearing or trial may be served at any place within the United States. Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall not apply to a subpoena issued under the preceding sentence. Judgments and decrees so rendered shall be subject to review as provided in sections 1254, 1291, 1292, and 1294 of title 28. No costs shall be assessed for or against the Commission in any proceeding under this chapter brought by or against it in the Supreme Court or such other courts.

(b) Extraterritorial jurisdictionThe district courts of the United States and the United States courts of any Territory shall have jurisdiction of an action or proceeding brought or instituted by the Commission or the United States alleging a violation of the antifraud provisions of this chapter involving—(1) conduct within the United States that constitutes significant steps in furtherance of the violation, even if the securities transaction occurs outside the United States and involves only foreign investors; or(2) conduct occurring outside the United States that has a foreseeable substantial effect within the United States.(June 6, 1934, ch. 404, title I, § 27, 48 Stat. 902; June 25, 1936, ch. 804, 49 Stat. 1921; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 32(b), 62 Stat. 991; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 127, 63 Stat. 107; Pub. L. 100–181, title III, § 326, Dec. 4, 1987, 101 Stat. 1259; Pub. L. 111–203, title IX, §§ 929E(b), 929P(b)(2), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1853, 1865.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original “this title”. See References in Text note set out under section 78a of this title.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (a), are set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Codification

As originally enacted section contained references to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Act June 25, 1936, substituted “the district court of the United States for the District of Columbia” for “the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia”, and act June 25, 1948, as amended by act May 24, 1949, substituted “United States District Court for the District of Columbia” for “district court of the United States for the District of Columbia”. Pub. L. 100–181 struck out reference to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Previously, such words had been editorially eliminated as superfluous in view of section 132(a) of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, which provides that “There shall be in each judicial district a district court which shall be a court of record known as the United States District Court for the district”, and section 88 of Title 28 which provides that “the District of Columbia constitutes one judicial district”.

Amendments

2010—Pub. L. 111–203, § 929P(b)(2), designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsec. (b).

Pub. L. 111–203, § 929E(b), inserted “In any action or proceeding instituted by the Commission under this chapter in a United States district court for any judicial district, a subpoena issued to compel the attendance of a witness or the production of documents or tangible things (or both) at a hearing or trial may be served at any place within the United States. Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall not apply to a subpoena issued under the preceding sentence.” after “defendant may be found.”

1987—Pub. L. 100–181 struck out “, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,” after “district courts of the United States” and substituted “sections 1254, 1291, 1292, and 1294 of title 28” for “sections 128 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U.S.C., title 28, secs. 225 and 347)”. See Codification note above.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective 1 day after July 21, 2010, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as an Effective Date note under section 5301 of Title 12, Banks and Banking.

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 1,967 cases (136 in the last 5 years), 1940–2026 · leading case: Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173 (1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173 (1979). · cites it 8× “902 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78aa. See nn. 9 and 10, infra, and accompanying text.”

NASDAQ OMX Grp., Inc. v. UBS Sec., LLC, 770 F.3d 1010 (2d Cir. 2014). · cites it 9× “1998) (concluding that plaintiff’s claims against SRO of breach of duty, conspiracy to deny relief, and failure to supervise, “though carefully articulated in terms of state law, are actions at law seeking to enforce liabilities or duties created by federal securities laws which…”

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, 136 S. Ct. 1562 (2016). · cites it 4× “I agree that this suit belongs in state court, but I would rest that conclusion on the statute before us, § 27 of the Securities Exchange *1576 Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa. That statute does not use the phrase "arising under" or provide a sound basis for adopting the…”

D'addario v. Geller, 264 F. Supp. 2d 367 (E.D. Va. 2003). · cites it 9× “§ 1962 (c) (RICO) and 15 U.S.C. § 78aa (Securities Exchange Act of 1934).”

Judith Goldman v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc, 834 F.3d 242 (3rd Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “§ 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 78aa(a) because the underlying arbitration included federal securities law claims.”

Shearson/Am. Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (1987). · cites it 4× “" First, we reject the McMahons' argument that § 29(a) forbids waiver of § 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U. S. C. § 78aa. Section 27 provides in relevant part: "The district courts of the United States .”

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367 (1996). · cites it 5× “See 15 U. S. C. § 78aa. The District Court declined to certify the class, entered summary judgment for Matsushita, and dismissed the case.”

Will v. Calvert Fire Ins., 437 U.S. 655 (1978). · cites it 4× “902 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78aa (1976 ed.), granted the district courts of the United States exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the Act, Calvert on the same day filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking damages from…”

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. an Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement in the Cloverly Subterranean Geological Formation, 524 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “Our cases have interpreted jurisdictional *1101 provisions substantially identical to § 717u, namely 15 U.S.C. § 78aa and 16 U.S.C. § 825p, 4 as giving federal courts jurisdiction over state law claims brought to enforce federal obligations.”

United States v. Johnson, 510 F.3d 521 (4th Cir. 2007). · cites it 9× “Based on the plain language and underlying purposes of the governing venue provision, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa, we reject both of these claims and find that the Eastern District of Virginia was an appropriate venue for this securities fraud offense.”

Warfield v. Alaniz, 453 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2006). · cites it 9× “The Rada Defendants argue that because CGAs are not “securities,” the Plaintiff cannot prove a violation of federal securities law and the “nationwide service of process” provision of the Federal Securities and Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 78aa (West 1997), does not apply to them.”

Nasdaq Omx Phlx, Inc. v. Pennmont Sec., 52 A.3d 296 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012). · cites it 4× “” Appellant’s Brief at 9 (alteration in original) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78aa). Because Rule 651 is a rule enacted under the Exchange Act, Appellants contend, the courts of this Commonwealth lack jurisdiction.”

Show all 1,967 citing cases →

— 15 U.S.C. § 78aa(a) — 87 cases

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, 136 S. Ct. 1562 (2016). “I agree that this suit belongs in state court, but I would rest that conclusion on the statute before us, § 27 of the Securities Exchange *1576 Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa. That statute does not use the phrase "arising under" or provide a sound basis for adopting the…”

Judith Goldman v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc, 834 F.3d 242 (3rd Cir. 2016). “§ 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 78aa(a) because the underlying arbitration included federal securities law claims.”

Noelle Lee v. Robert Fisher, 70 F.4th 1129 (9th Cir. 2023).

Laura Canaday v. The Anthem Companies, Inc., 9 F.4th 392 (6th Cir. 2021).

Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Gilbert, 656 F. App'x 45 (6th Cir. 2016).

— 15 U.S.C. § 78aa(b) — 9 cases

Parkcentral Global Hub Ltd. v. Porsche Auto. Holdings SE, 763 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2014).

SEC v. Morrone, 997 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2021).

Liu Meng-Lin v. Siemens AG, 763 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2014).

A.L. Barnes v. Resource Royalties, Inc., 795 F.2d 1359 (8th Cir. 1986).

Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. ELLIOTT (D. Mass. 2020).

— 15 U.S.C. § 78aa(b)(1) — 1 case

Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Caridi (D. Conn. 2024).

— 15 U.S.C. § 78aa(b)(2) — 1 case

U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Sharef, 924 F. Supp. 2d 539 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

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.