Crist v. United Underwriters, Ltd.

5 Citing cases

  1. Kerbs v. Fall River Industries, Inc.

    502 F.2d 731 (10th Cir. 1974)   Cited 101 times
    Holding defendant corporation liable for securities fraud "because . . . its president, acting within the scope of his apparent authority as principal officer and agent of the corporation, engaged in conduct which violated provisions of § 10 of the Act and Rule 10b-5"

    It is now well established that a violation of the provisions of § 10(b) gives rise to a private cause of action. See Superintendent of Insurance of New York v. Bankers Life Casualty Co., 404 U.S. 6, 13 n. 9, 92 S.Ct. 165, 169, 30 L.Ed.2d 128, 134 (1971); Crist v. United Underwriters, Ltd., 343 F.2d 902, 903 (10th Cir. 1965); 6 L. Loss, Securities Regulation 3869-3873 (1969). Jurisdiction will be established, and a case will be made out under the statute and the rule, if plaintiff is successful in proving (1) the use of the mails or instrumentalities of interstate commerce; (2) the purchase or sale of a security; and (3) the use of a manipulative or deceptive device.

  2. Brennan v. Midwestern United Life Insurance Company, (N.D.Ind. 1966)

    259 F. Supp. 673 (N.D. Ind. 1966)   Cited 91 times
    In Brennan the Seventh Circuit, upon finding that the defendant knew of the fraudulent activity and did not expose it in order to benefit itself, affirmed the imposition of liability as an aider and abettor for inaction "combined with [defendant's] affirmative acts."

    Such civil liability has become well established in the twenty years since it first appeared in the landmark case of Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., 69 F. Supp. 512 (E.D.Pa. 1946). The Kardon doctrine has been explicitly approved and adopted in holdings of courts of appeals in five circuits — Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Co., 188 F.2d 783 (2d Cir. 1951); Speed v. Transamerica Corp., 235 F.2d 369 (3d Cir. 1956); Hooper v. Mountain States Securities Corp., 282 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1960); Fratt v. Robinson, 203 F.2d 627, 37 A.L.R.2d 636 (9th Cir. 1953); Ellis v. Carter, 291 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1961); Crist v. United Underwriters, Ltd., 343 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1965); by dictum of the courts of appeals in two more circuits — Beury v. Beury, 222 F.2d 464, 465 (4th Cir. 1955); Brouk v. Managed Funds, Inc., 286 F.2d 901, 906-908, 913 (8th Cir. 1961); Boone v. Baugh, 308 F.2d 711, 713-714 (8th Cir. 1962); and applied in the district courts in still two more circuits — Northern Trust Co. v. Essaness Theatres Corp., 103 F. Supp. 954, 964 (N.D.Ill. 1952); Texas Continental Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Bond Co., 187 F. Supp. 14, 23 (W.D.Ky. 1960) — including the Seventh Circuit where Judge La Buy, in the Northern Trust Co. case, stated, "Without unduly lengthening this memorandum by consideration of the defendants' contentions, the court is of the opinion Section 10(b) authorizes the remedy here pursued."

  3. Reyos v. United States

    431 F.2d 1337 (10th Cir. 1970)   Cited 22 times
    In Reyos, a group of mixed-blood Utes sued a bank that acted as transfer agent for the shares of UDC stock. Also named as defendants were several officers of the bank and the United States. The plaintiffs contended that the bank and its officers had committed securities violations in encouraging mixed-blood Utes to sell their stock.

    The origin of the rule, its relation to section 17 of the 1933 Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)) and the initial doubt as to whether civil actions were contemplated need not be stated here as these matters are elsewhere fully described. Jensen v. Voyles, 393 F.2d 131 (10th Cir.); Doelle v. Ireco Chemicals, 391 F.2d 6 (10th Cir.); Crist v. United Underwriters, Ltd., 343 F.2d 902 (10th Cir.); Stevens v. Vowell, 343 F.2d 374 (10th Cir.). See, Cohen, Truth in Securities Revisited, 79 Harv.L.Rev. 1340; 3 Loss, Securities Regulation, ¶¶ 1785-86; Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Co., 188 F.2d 783 (2d Cir.); Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., 69 F. Supp. 512 (E.D.Pa.); Securities Exchange Comm'n v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d 833 (2d Cir.) ( 258 F. Supp. 262); Annot., 37 A.L.R.2d 649; 59 Yale L.J. 1120; 20 Stan.L.Rev. 347; 63 Nw. U.L.Rev. 452; 16 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 404.

  4. Myzel v. Fields

    386 F.2d 718 (8th Cir. 1968)   Cited 331 times
    Holding that the intrastate use of a telephone to violate federal securities laws satisfies the interstate-commerce element of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

    Although recision is sought as relief, it has been properly observed that an action, under Rule 10b-5 lies in tort and not on contractual grounds. Crist v. United Underwriters, Ltd., 343 F.2d 902 (10 Cir. 1965). Yet some commentators suggest that if recision alone is sought, problems of "privity" may still apply.

  5. Anderson Foreign Motors v. New Eng. Toyota Distrib.

    492 F. Supp. 1383 (D. Mass. 1980)   Cited 8 times
    Affirming order of attachment issued in 1979

    Many of the cases cited by the defendants are from jurisdictions whose statutes specifically limit attachment to actions in contract. See, e.g., Crist v. United Underwriters, Ltd., 10 Cir. 1965, 343 F.2d 902; McCall v. Superior Court, 1934, 1 Cal.2d 527, 36 P.2d 642. Other cited cases state in passing that the court must find explicit statutory authorization to attach but deal principally with points of law wholly apart from the attachment issue. See, e.g., Investors Royalty v. Market Trend Survey, 10 Cir. 1953, 206 F.2d 108; Stowe v. Matson, 1949, 94 Cal.2d 678, 211 P.2d 591.