SEC v. Unifund SAL case brief summary
910 F.2d 1028 (1990)
CASE FACTS
Appellants, several foreign corporations, were accused of engaging in insider trading activity. Appellee federal securities agency, pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 70 et seq., requested and was granted temporary restraining orders preventing appellants from engaging in further securities activity. The lower court granted the preliminary injunction prohibiting further insider trading violations, freezing appellants' accounts, subject to trading approval by appellee, and barring alteration or disposal of appellants' books. Appellants challenged the granting of the injunction based on a lack of personal jurisdiction, improper service, and insufficient evidence to support the injunction.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the lower court's preliminary injunction in part and modified it in part.
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
910 F.2d 1028 (1990)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants requested review of a
preliminary injunction granted pursuant to the Securities Exchange
Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 70 et seq., by the District Court for the
Southern District of New York to appellee federal securities agency
in an action alleging insider trading violations.CASE FACTS
Appellants, several foreign corporations, were accused of engaging in insider trading activity. Appellee federal securities agency, pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 70 et seq., requested and was granted temporary restraining orders preventing appellants from engaging in further securities activity. The lower court granted the preliminary injunction prohibiting further insider trading violations, freezing appellants' accounts, subject to trading approval by appellee, and barring alteration or disposal of appellants' books. Appellants challenged the granting of the injunction based on a lack of personal jurisdiction, improper service, and insufficient evidence to support the injunction.
DISCUSSION
- The court found that the lower court properly asserted personal jurisdiction over appellants and that service of process on appellants was properly conducted.
- The court noted that, while appellee had presented sufficient evidence to freeze appellants' accounts, the evidence was insufficient to support mandatory trading approval by appellee.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the lower court's preliminary injunction in part and modified it in part.
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