Gordon v. New York Stock Exchange case brief summary
422 U.S. 659 (1975)
CASE FACTS
This case involved the reconciliation of the antitrust laws with a federal regulatory scheme in the practice of the securities exchanges and their members of using fixed rates of commission. Petitioner brought an action against respondents, stock exchange firms, alleging that the system of fixed commission rates violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1, 2. Respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing that the challenged actions were subject to the overriding supervision of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under § 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.S. § 78s(b), and therefore not subject to the antitrust laws. Respondents' motion was granted by the trial court and affirmed by the lower court.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The Court affirmed and held that implied repeal of the antitrust laws was necessary to make the Securities Exchange Act work as intended and that failure to imply repeal would obviate the legislative provision for regulatory agency supervision of exchange commission rates.
Suggested Study Aids For Securities Regulation Law
Securities Regulation in a Nutshell, 10th (Nutshell Series)
Securities Regulation: Examples & Explanations, 5th Edition
Securities Regulations: The Essentials
422 U.S. 659 (1975)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner challenged a judgment from
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holding
that fixed commission rates were immunized from antitrust attack
because of the Securities and Exchange Commission's authority to
approve or disapprove exchange commission rates and its exercise of
that power under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,15 U.S.C.S. §
78s(b).CASE FACTS
This case involved the reconciliation of the antitrust laws with a federal regulatory scheme in the practice of the securities exchanges and their members of using fixed rates of commission. Petitioner brought an action against respondents, stock exchange firms, alleging that the system of fixed commission rates violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1, 2. Respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing that the challenged actions were subject to the overriding supervision of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under § 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.S. § 78s(b), and therefore not subject to the antitrust laws. Respondents' motion was granted by the trial court and affirmed by the lower court.
DISCUSSION
- The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed and held that fixed commission rates were immunized from antitrust attack because of the SEC's authority to approve or disapprove exchange commission rates.
- The Court further stated that implied repeal of the antitrust laws was necessary to make the Securities Exchange Act work as intended and that failure to imply repeal would obviate the legislative provision for regulatory agency supervision of exchange commission rates.
CONCLUSION
The Court affirmed and held that implied repeal of the antitrust laws was necessary to make the Securities Exchange Act work as intended and that failure to imply repeal would obviate the legislative provision for regulatory agency supervision of exchange commission rates.
Suggested Study Aids For Securities Regulation Law
Securities Regulation in a Nutshell, 10th (Nutshell Series)
Securities Regulation: Examples & Explanations, 5th Edition
Securities Regulations: The Essentials
No comments:
Post a Comment