15 U.S.C. § 78h
Restrictions on borrowing and lending by members, brokers, and dealers
1996—Pub. L. 104–290 redesignated subsecs. (b) and (c) as (a) and (b), respectively, and struck out former subsec. (a) which related to borrowing in ordinary course of business as broker or dealer on any security, except exempted security, registered on national securities exchange.
1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–325 inserted “or a small business related security” after “mortgage related security” in last sentence.
1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–440 inserted provision that no person shall be deemed to have borrowed within the ordinary course of business, within the meaning of this subsection, by reason of a bona fide agreement for delayed delivery of a mortgage related security under certain conditions.
1975—Pub. L. 94–29, § 5(1), substituted “any registered broker or dealer, member of a national securities exchange, or broker or dealer who transacts a business in securities through the medium of any member of a national securities exchange” for “any member of a national securities exchange, or any broker or dealer who transacts a business in securities through the medium of any such member” in provisions preceding subsec. (a).
Subsecs. (b) to (d). Pub. L. 94–29, § 5(2), redesignated subsecs. (c) and (d) as (b) and (c), respectively, and in subsec. (c) as so redesignated inserted “or in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commissioner shall prescribe for the protection of investors” after “written consent of such customer”. Former subsec. (b), which covered the maximum allowable aggregate indebtedness of brokers, was struck out.
Act
Amendment by Pub. L. 94–29 effective
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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases, 1938–2010 · leading case: Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,460 United States of Am. v. Donald Eucker, 532 F.2d 249 (2d Cir. 1976).
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,460 United States of Am. v. Donald Eucker, 532 F.2d 249 (2d Cir. 1976). “” 15 U.S.C. § 78h(c) makes it unlawful for a broker, in contravention of the rules and regulations of the SEC, to hypothecate any customer’s securities “under circumstances (1) that will permit the commingling of his securities without his written consent with the securities of…”
Larach v. Stand. Chartered Bank Int'l (Americas) Ltd., 724 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (S.D. Fla. 2010). “§ 78h; see generally Louis Loss & Joel Seligman, 7 Securities Regulation 3176-86 (3d ed.”
UNITED STATES of Am., Appellee, v. Robert SCHWARTZ, Appellant, 464 F.2d 499 (2d Cir. 1972). “4 *503 Appellant’s Claims Appellant challenges his conviction on several grounds: (1) that he was denied his sixth amendment right to a speedy trial; (2) that the phrase “transacts a business” is so indefinite as to render 15 U.S.C. § 78h void for vagueness; (3) that the…”
United States v. Pray, 452 F. Supp. 788 (M.D. Penn. 1978). “§§ 2 , 1341, 1961, 1962(c), 1963 & 2314. On April 11, 1978, Pray filed a motion for the extension of the time period set forth in ¶ 3.”
Baird v. Frankline, 141 F.2d 238 (2d Cir. 1944). “The first is that on or about November 24, 1937, the defendant New York Stock Exchange knew that Richard Whitney was guilty of unlawful acts and conduct inconsistent with just and equitable trade, in that he had permitted his aggregate indebtedness to exceed a certain percentage…”
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,011 Howard C. Hirsch v. Edmond Du Pont, & Haskins & Sells & New York Stock Exch., Inc., 553 F.2d 750 (2d Cir. 1977). “We do not believe the appellants’s effort to ground the Exchange’s liability on its obligation to enforce § 8(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78h(b), repealed, Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, § 5(2), P.”
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Ware, 414 U.S. 117 (1973). “See, for example, §§ 8, 9, and 11, 15 U. S. C. §§ 78h, 78i, and 78k. No question is presented in this case as to the authority of the Commission to promulgate rules affecting the operation of stock exchanges.”
First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 629 F. Supp. 427 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). “The amended complaint alleges in count IV that OAD conspired with and aided and abetted Comark in its violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, as well as Sections 8(b) and 15(c)(1) of the…”
Dahl v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 545 N.W.2d 918 (Minn. 1996). “See 15 U.S.C. §§ 78h, 78i, and 78k (1992). It is clear, however, that Congress did not intend to exclude states from concurrent regulation of the securities industry: “Congress intended to subject the exchanges to state regulation that is not inconsistent with the federal Act.”
Bissell v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 937 F. Supp. 237 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). “See 15 U.S.C. § 78h(c); 17 C.F.R. § 240 .15c3-3(a)(3) and (4).”
In Re New York City Mun. Sec. Litig., 507 F. Supp. 169 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). “§ 78g(a); § 8(a) (restrictions on borrowing by members, brokers and dealers), 15 U.S.C. § 78h(a); § 9(f) (manipulation of security prices), 15 U.”
Twomey v. Mitchum, Jones & Templeton, Inc., 262 Cal. App. 2d 690 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968). “2d 6, 9 ] [refusal to consider violation of restriction on borrowing under section 8 (15 U.S.C.A. § 78h) in support of complaint for fraud]; Malkan v.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 78h(a) — 1 case
In Re New York City Mun. Sec. Litig., 507 F. Supp. 169 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). “§ 78g(a); § 8(a) (restrictions on borrowing by members, brokers and dealers), 15 U.S.C. § 78h(a); § 9(f) (manipulation of security prices), 15 U.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 78h(b) — 8 cases
United States v. Pray, 452 F. Supp. 788 (M.D. Penn. 1978). “§§ 2 , 1341, 1961, 1962(c), 1963 & 2314. On April 11, 1978, Pray filed a motion for the extension of the time period set forth in ¶ 3.”
Baird v. Frankline, 141 F.2d 238 (2d Cir. 1944). “The first is that on or about November 24, 1937, the defendant New York Stock Exchange knew that Richard Whitney was guilty of unlawful acts and conduct inconsistent with just and equitable trade, in that he had permitted his aggregate indebtedness to exceed a certain percentage…”
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,011 Howard C. Hirsch v. Edmond Du Pont, & Haskins & Sells & New York Stock Exch., Inc., 553 F.2d 750 (2d Cir. 1977). “We do not believe the appellants’s effort to ground the Exchange’s liability on its obligation to enforce § 8(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78h(b), repealed, Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, § 5(2), P.”
First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 629 F. Supp. 427 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). “The amended complaint alleges in count IV that OAD conspired with and aided and abetted Comark in its violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, as well as Sections 8(b) and 15(c)(1) of the…”
Matter of Weis Sec., Inc., 425 F. Supp. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 1977).
— 15 U.S.C. § 78h(c) — 7 cases
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,460 United States of Am. v. Donald Eucker, 532 F.2d 249 (2d Cir. 1976). “” 15 U.S.C. § 78h(c) makes it unlawful for a broker, in contravention of the rules and regulations of the SEC, to hypothecate any customer’s securities “under circumstances (1) that will permit the commingling of his securities without his written consent with the securities of…”
Bissell v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 937 F. Supp. 237 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). “See 15 U.S.C. § 78h(c); 17 C.F.R. § 240 .15c3-3(a)(3) and (4).”
UNITED STATES of Am., Appellee, v. Robert SCHWARTZ, Appellant, 464 F.2d 499 (2d Cir. 1972). “4 *503 Appellant’s Claims Appellant challenges his conviction on several grounds: (1) that he was denied his sixth amendment right to a speedy trial; (2) that the phrase “transacts a business” is so indefinite as to render 15 U.S.C. § 78h void for vagueness; (3) that the…”
United States v. Saporta, 270 F. Supp. 183 (E.D.N.Y 1967).
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, Appellee, v. Charles Plohn & Co., Appellants, 433 F.2d 376 (2d Cir. 1970).
— 15 U.S.C. § 78h(c)(l) — 1 case
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,460 United States of Am. v. Donald Eucker, 532 F.2d 249 (2d Cir. 1976). “” 15 U.S.C. § 78h(c) makes it unlawful for a broker, in contravention of the rules and regulations of the SEC, to hypothecate any customer’s securities “under circumstances (1) that will permit the commingling of his securities without his written consent with the securities of…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 78h(e) — 1 case
UNITED STATES of Am., Appellee, v. Robert SCHWARTZ, Appellant, 464 F.2d 499 (2d Cir. 1972). “4 *503 Appellant’s Claims Appellant challenges his conviction on several grounds: (1) that he was denied his sixth amendment right to a speedy trial; (2) that the phrase “transacts a business” is so indefinite as to render 15 U.S.C. § 78h void for vagueness; (3) that the…”
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.