Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,804 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Universal Major Industries Corp., Arthur J. Homans

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• approving use of the integrated offering concept although not requiring the SEC to establish its, existence in connection with that Section 5 violation
• finding liability for individual who was indispensable to another’s sale of stock
• rejecting argument that there is no liability for aiding and abetting Section 5 violations because, “[b]y its terms, Section 5 makes it unlawful, ‘directly or indirectly’, to sell unregistered stock”
• rejecting the argument that there should be no aiding and abetting liability under Section 5 because “[b]y its terms, Section 5 makes it unlawful, directly or indirectly, to sell unregistered stock”
• permanent injunction despite appellant’s contention that he had ceased his association with a codefendant over three years earlier and the SEC had not suspected him of illegal activity since that time
• the inquiry under Section 5 depends “not so much upon the nature of the offering as upon the need for protection of the class of offerees; i.e., whether they have the information which a registration would disclose, or have access to it”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).