Sec v texas gulf sulphur. Chapter 23 Review Flashcards 2018-12-30

Sec v texas gulf sulphur Rating: 5,7/10 1787 reviews

446 F2d 1301 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Company

sec v texas gulf sulphur

That is too slim a basis to support a judicial excursion over such uncharted seas. The Commission can suspend trading for successive periods of 10 days in any security which it feels is being affected by misleading press releases §§ 15 c 5 , 19 a 4 , 15 U. When drilling was resumed on March 31, hole K-55-3 was commenced 510 feet west of K-55-1 and was drilled easterly at a 45° angle so as to cross K-55-1 in a vertical plane. While the alleged fraudulent acts were committed before plaintiff sold his stock he had not at the time of suit , he was about to be forced to sell his part of a single fraudulent scheme. He then balances these risks against the apparent opportunities for capital gains and makes his decision accordingly. As stated by Judge Learned Hand in United States v.

Next

446 F2d 1301 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Company

sec v texas gulf sulphur

Both of these defendants, having inside information as to the results of the Timmins drilling, bought stock within 24 hours before the news of the ore strike was made public. Manipulation is not one of them. Of course subsection c is a catch-all clause to prevent manipulative devices. Indiana 1966 Defendant corporation allegedly aided and abetted an alleged violation of 10b-5 by its brokerage firm because of its failure to report the improper activities of said firm to the proper authorities. Detailed information similar to that required by the 1933 Act has to be filed with the Commission for such registered securities, and this information is required by § 13, 15 U. And still deeper, a strong zinc section of better than 100 ft.

Next

LEB Ch 28 Flashcards

sec v texas gulf sulphur

Stephens, Fogarty and Kline stand on an altogether different basis; as senior officers they had an obligation to inform the Committee that this was not the right time to grant options at 95% of the current price. There are more intriguing archeological details, but this is enough to make it curious that the Supreme Court in Chiarella resurrected egalitarianism in order to kill it again. The majority remand the case against the corporate defendant to the district court for a determination as to whether the April 12 press release was misleading and whether, if so, those responsible for the release used due diligence. Court Decision: Texas Gulf Sulfer Co. Absent much clearer language than is found in the 1934 Act, the entitlement of a plaintiff to an injunction thereunder remains subject to principles of equitable discretion. The Report of the Senate Committee which presented S.

Next

From Texas Gulf Sulphur to Chiarella: A Tale of Two Duties

sec v texas gulf sulphur

Since the option granted to Kline had not been exercised prior to its ratification by the Texas Gulf directors on July 15, 1965, after full disclosure, there can be no 10b-5 violation as to him, and rescission of the option he received should not be ordered. This conclusion is amply supported by the record. I suppose it would be clear, under Ruckle v. This contention overlooks the realities of the situation. Materiality must depend upon the facts and their resolution is for the fact-finder, court or jury. Crawford ordered 300 shares at midnight on the 15th and another 300 shares at 8:30 A. Nor does restitution impose a hardship in this case.

Next

Gulf Sulphur and the Genesis of Corporate Liability Under Rule by Adam C. Pritchard and Robert B. Thompson

sec v texas gulf sulphur

No inferences as to grade can be drawn from this procedure. To protect the appellants against double liability, any private judgments against these appellants arising out of the events of this case are to be paid from this fund. Kline — cancellation of stock option. § 78n, the Commission has promulgated proxy rules setting forth information that must be sent to shareholders prior to their annual or other meetings. Mollison, Walter Holyk, Kenneth H.

Next

Judicial View > Federal Cases > Business Organizations > Securities and Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Company

sec v texas gulf sulphur

§ 78i provides that it shall be unlawful for any broker, dealer or other person to create a false or misleading appearance of activity in the market for a stock or to attempt to affect the price of a stock by certain specific manipulative devices. Such benefits, in essence, are forms of secret corporate compensation, see Cary, Corporate Standards and Legal Rules, 50 Calif. In our prior opinion we directed the district court to cancel Kline's stock option to rectify his violation of Rule 10b-5 the other four stock options had been voluntarily canceled or were otherwise not in issue. The speculator then examines the facts to discover and evaluate the risks that are present. As to these eight individuals we remand so that in accordance with the agreement between the parties the Commission may notice a hearing before the court below to determine the remedies to be applied against them.

Next

446 F2d 1301 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Company

sec v texas gulf sulphur

However, it cannot be doubted that one of the most important purposes of the securities legislation was to prevent improper information being circulated by the issuer, and I therefore am not disposed to hold that Congress meant to deny a power whose use in appropriate cases can be of such great public benefit and do so little harm to legitimate activity. There is little doubt that § 27 of the Act confers general equity power upon the district courts. In summary, therefore, we affirm the judgment below as to each of the appellants, with the exception that the order cancelling Kline's stock option is reversed and his case is remanded for a hearing on the appropriateness of that remedy. § 78i provides that it shall be unlawful for any broker, dealer or other person to create a false or misleading appearance of activity in the market for a stock or to attempt to affect the price of a stock by certain specific manipulative devices. We will shortly be exploring this issue in the in banc consideration of Schoenbaum v. A remand on this point is therefore not justified.

Next

SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Company

sec v texas gulf sulphur

Mollison and Holyk expected it to be released over the airways at 11 P. But the case stands differently as to paragraph 2. As stated in Western Pacific: David M. Is An Insider's Good Faith A Defense Under 10b-5? Primarily, our task should be to review errors of law. Indeed, Clayton and Crawford were the only appellants who had been adjudged violators of Rule 10b-5 by the district court at the first trial of this case.

Next