For Your Data Superintendent Of Insurance Of Novel York V. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. Illustration Brief
April 25, 2016
Edit
Superintendent of Insurance of New York v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. case brief summary
404 U.S. vi (1971)
CASE FACTS
The insurance companionship sold its stock to i respondent who paid for the stock amongst the company's assets past times way of a scheme involving checks, treasury bonds, certificate of deposits, in addition to loans. The company's books indicated that treasury bonds were sold in addition to a certificate of deposit inwards the same amount was purchased, exactly did non exhibit that the certificate of deposit had been assigned to a 3rd party, thus pledged to a 4th party. The company, represented past times the Superintendent, alleged violations of securities laws. The district courtroom dismissed the electrical load in addition to the courtroom of appeals affirmed.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The Court reversed the judgment dismissing the electrical load in addition to remanded for trial.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations in addition to Business Associations Law
404 U.S. vi (1971)
CASE SYNOPSIS
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing a electrical load alleging that respondents defrauded an insurance companionship inwards the sale of for sure securities inwards violation of § 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C.S. § 77q(a) and § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.S. § 78j(b). Petitioner Superintendent of Insurance of New York obtained a writ of certiorari.CASE FACTS
The insurance companionship sold its stock to i respondent who paid for the stock amongst the company's assets past times way of a scheme involving checks, treasury bonds, certificate of deposits, in addition to loans. The company's books indicated that treasury bonds were sold in addition to a certificate of deposit inwards the same amount was purchased, exactly did non exhibit that the certificate of deposit had been assigned to a 3rd party, thus pledged to a 4th party. The company, represented past times the Superintendent, alleged violations of securities laws. The district courtroom dismissed the electrical load in addition to the courtroom of appeals affirmed.
DISCUSSION
- On review, the Court held that:
- (1) the alleged fraud was cognizable under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act,15 U.S.C.S. § 78j (b), in addition to S.E.C. Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, inwards the bond sale equally the companionship was injured equally an investor through a deceptive device that deprived it of whatever compensation for the sale of its valuable block of securities; and
- (2) the facts that the fraud was perpetrated past times an officeholder of the companionship in addition to his exterior collaborators in addition to that the transaction was non conducted through a securities central or an organized over-the-counter marketplace were irrelevant.
CONCLUSION
The Court reversed the judgment dismissing the electrical load in addition to remanded for trial.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations in addition to Business Associations Law