Securities Act Of 1933 Registration Requirements

13 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Milnarik v. M-S Commodities, Inc.
  457 F.2d 274· 7th Cir.· 1972-01-28 ·cited 55×
  A discretionary trading account in commodity futures is not a security subject to the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 because it does not involve an investment in a common enterprise.
• Doran v. Petroleum Mgmt. Corp.
  545 F.2d 893· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court erred in concluding the offering was private without determining if each offeree had been furnished information equivalent to a registration statement or had effective access to such information.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Cont'l Tobacco Co. OF S.C., Inc.
  463 F.2d 137· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-02 ·cited 29×
• United States v. Abrams
  357 F.2d 539· 2d Cir.· 1966-03-04 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that no reversible errors were committed during the trial.
• Kukatush Mining Corp. (N.P.L.) v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n
  309 F.2d 647· D.C. Cir.· 1962-10-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a Canadian corporation has standing to seek review of its placement on a restricted list, and that while prior notice is not required, a post-listing hearing is.
• Williams v. United States
  402 F.2d 47· 10th Cir.· 1967-12-12 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the conviction for criminal contempt, finding the defendant willfully violated a permanent injunction against selling unregistered securities and making fraudulent representations.
• Walston A. Lynn v. Caraway
  379 F.2d 943· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-05 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the sale of the entire interest in an oil and gas lease to a third party, even if followed by that party's sale of fractional interests, did not constitute the sale of unregistered securities by the original seller in
• W. Fed. Corp. v. Einar C. Erickson and Georgia Erickson
  739 F.2d 1439· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the sale of interests in the silver mining venture violated the Securities Act of 1933 registration requirements, and the promoters' defenses were without merit, justifying summary judgment and attorney's fees.
• Symington Wayne Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc.
  383 F.2d 840· 2d Cir.· 1967-07-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and the balance of hardships weighed against granting a preliminary injunction.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. TAX Serv., Inc.
  357 F.2d 143· 4th Cir.· 1966-02-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the offer and sale of unregistered securities violated the Securities Act of 1933, and the 'private offering' exemption did not apply.
• Murphy v. Royal Am. Indus., Inc.
  188 So. 2d 884· Fla. 4th DCA· 1966-07-26 ·cited 5×
  Murphy and other stockholders exchanged their Fort Pierce Port & Terminal Co. stock for Royal American Industries stock under an agreement requiring Royal American to register the stock for trading on the American Stock Exchange within six months, or repurchase the shares at $2.5
• Parvin v. Davis OIL Co.
  655 F.2d 901· 9th Cir.· 1979-11-26
  The court held that the joint venture and private offering exemptions were inapplicable, requiring a permit for the securities sale, and that prejudgment interest must be awarded as a matter of law because the damages were ascertainable.
• Oglesby v. Allen
  408 F.2d 1154· 5th Cir.· 1969-03-17
  The court held that the contract was not ambiguous and parol evidence contradicting its terms was inadmissible. It also held that the appellant's damages claim for late delivery should be considered, but not based on open market value.