15 U.S.C. § 78e
Transactions on unregistered exchanges
It shall be unlawful for any broker, dealer, or exchange, directly or indirectly, to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce for the purpose of using any facility of an exchange within or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to effect any transaction in a security, or to report any such transaction, unless such exchange (1) is registered as national securities exchange under section 78f of this title, or (2) is exempted from such registration upon application by the exchange because, in the opinion of the Commission, by reason of the limited volume of transactions effected on such exchange, it is not practicable and not necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors to require such registration.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 104
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1944–2025 · leading case: Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. v. United International Holdings, Inc.
Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. v. United International Holdings, Inc. (2001)
“15 U.S.C. §78e(a)(10) (1994 ed., Supp. V); see also Blue Chip Stamps v.”
Silver v. New York Stock Exchange (1963)
“Instead of giving the Commission the power to curb specific instances of abuse, the Act placed in the exchanges a duty to register with the Commission, § 5, 15 U. S. C. § 78e, and decreed that registration could not be granted unless the exchange submitted copies of its rules, §…”
Securities and Exchange Commission v. First Jersey Securities, Inc. And Robert E. Brennan (1996)
“See 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(38) (1994). For market makers, markups in the security “may be computed on the basis of the contemporaneous prices charged by the firm or other market makers in actual sales to other dealers or, if no such prices are available, on the basis of…”
Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Commission (1977)
“100 , amending § 3 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. §78e(a)(25) (1970 ed., Supp. V).”
Williams v. Binance (2024)
“Plaintiffs alleged that their contracts with Binance are voidable under Section 29(b) because Binance violated Section 5 of the Exchange Act by operating as an unregistered exchange, 15 U.S.C. § 78e, and Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act by operating as an unregistered…”
Manuel KAPLAN; Carol Kaplan; MK Investments, Inc., Appellants, v. FIRST OPTIONS OF CHICAGO, INC., Appellee (1994)
“1987) (phrase “associated person” is “not defined in the NYSE rules, but its use therein is clearly meant to draw on the definition found in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which defines it to mean ‘any partner, officer, director, or branch manager’ of a member firm”)…”
McLaughlin v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (2010)
“Count Six purports to state a claim for violations of Section 5 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78e, based upon CitiMortgage’s alleged purchase of an “Unregistered Security.”
Baird v. Frankline (1944)
“XIV, § 16, c. XV, § 3. [4] Secs. 5, 6(a) (2), 7(d), 9(a) (6), 9(b), 9(c), 10(a), 10(b), 11(a), 11(b), 11(c), 12 (b) (1), 12(b) (2), 12(d), 12(e), 12(f), 13(a), 14(a), 14(b), 15(b), 15(c) (3), 15(d), 15A(a) (1), 15A(b) (3), 15A(b) (4), 15A(b) (7), 15A (c), 15A(h) (2), 15A(j),…”
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Global Telecom Services L.L.C. (2004)
“Investment Contracts Plaintiff argues that the first 42 investments sold by LaTouche and Car-telli in Medical Disposal are “investment contracts” under § 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act, 15 U.”
Warfield v. Alaniz (2009)
“If Congress’s intent in amending the definition of exempted securities at 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(12)(A) to include securities issued by certain charitable income funds was to exempt all persons selling these securities from the broker-dealer registration requirement at 15 U.”
Tcherepnin v. Knight (1967)
“5 15 U. S. C. §78e (a) (10). 6 15 TJ. S. C.”
Susquehanna International Group, LLP v. Securities & Exchange Commission (2017)
“In turn, a clearing agency’s rules are consistent with the Act only if “the Commission determines that” they meet certain specified requirements.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(10) — 1 case
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(18) — 1 case
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(2) — 1 case
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a) — 8 cases
Collins v. Rukin (1972)
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(10) — 30 cases
Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. v. United International Holdings, Inc. (2001)
“15 U.S.C. §78e(a)(10) (1994 ed., Supp. V); see also Blue Chip Stamps v.”
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Global Telecom Services L.L.C. (2004)
“Investment Contracts Plaintiff argues that the first 42 investments sold by LaTouche and Car-telli in Medical Disposal are “investment contracts” under § 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act, 15 U.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(11) — 1 case
Levner v. Saud (1994)
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(12)(A) — 1 case
Warfield v. Alaniz (2009)
“If Congress’s intent in amending the definition of exempted securities at 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(12)(A) to include securities issued by certain charitable income funds was to exempt all persons selling these securities from the broker-dealer registration requirement at 15 U.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(13) — 6 cases
Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. v. United International Holdings, Inc. (2001)
“15 U.S.C. §78e(a)(10) (1994 ed., Supp. V); see also Blue Chip Stamps v.”
Blau v. Ogsbury (1954)
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(18) — 1 case
United States v. Emmenegger (2004)
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(21) — 4 cases
Manuel KAPLAN; Carol Kaplan; MK Investments, Inc., Appellants, v. FIRST OPTIONS OF CHICAGO, INC., Appellee (1994)
“1987) (phrase “associated person” is “not defined in the NYSE rules, but its use therein is clearly meant to draw on the definition found in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which defines it to mean ‘any partner, officer, director, or branch manager’ of a member firm”)…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(25) — 1 case
Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Commission (1977)
“100 , amending § 3 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. §78e(a)(25) (1970 ed., Supp. V).”
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(26) — 4 cases
Susquehanna International Group, LLP v. Securities & Exchange Commission (2017)
“In turn, a clearing agency’s rules are consistent with the Act only if “the Commission determines that” they meet certain specified requirements.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(34)(B)(iv) — 1 case
Riggs v. Schappell (1996)
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(35) — 1 case
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(38) — 2 cases
Securities and Exchange Commission v. First Jersey Securities, Inc. And Robert E. Brennan (1996)
“See 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(38) (1994). For market makers, markups in the security “may be computed on the basis of the contemporaneous prices charged by the firm or other market makers in actual sales to other dealers or, if no such prices are available, on the basis of…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(39) — 1 case
United States v. Foont (1995)
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(39)(B) — 1 case
Riggs v. Schappell (1996)
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(39)(F) — 1 case
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(4) — 1 case
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(4)(A) — 1 case
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(9) — 5 cases
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(a)(ll) — 1 case
Dorfman v. Chemical Bank (1972)
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(c) — 1 case
— 15 U.S.C. § 78e(f) — 1 case
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.