Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-08-1982
..... used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires -- " " * * * *" "(10) the term 'security' means any note, stock, treasury stock, bond, debenture, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement or in any oil, gas, or other mineral royalty or lease, any collateral-trust certificate, pre-organization certificate or subscription ..... that petitioner violated, inter alia, the antifraud provisions of 10(b) of the securities exchange act of 1934 (act) by soliciting the loan guarantee while knowing, but not disclosing, the borrowing company's financial plight or petitioner's plans to repay itself from the guaranteed loan. the district ..... and sec v. c. m. joiner leasing corp., 320 u. s. 344 , distinguished. the provision of the agreement giving respondents a share of the company's profits is not, in itself, sufficient to make the agreement a security. pp. 455 u. s. 559 -560. 637 f.2d 157, reversed and ..... court of appeals reversed, holding that it could reasonably be found that either the certificate of deposit or the agreement between respondents and the company's owners was a security. held: neither the certificate of deposit nor the agreement in question is a security within the meaning of ..... in the financial markets, 64 minn.l.rev. 893, 912-918 (1980). [ footnote 5 ] the definition of a "security" in the 1934 act, n 3, supra, includes the term, "certificate of deposit, for a security." however, this term does not refer to certificates of deposit such as .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-17-1982
..... federal courts, not included within the constitutional provision, would be bound by state judgments. davis v. davis, 305 u. s. 32 , 305 u. s. 40 (1938) ("the act extended the rule of the constitution to all courts, federal as well as state"). see also underwriters national assur. co. v. north carolina life & accident & health insurance guaranty assn., ..... was not subjected to the usual conference procedure. instead, the house voted acceptance of the senate measure. see eeoc, legislative history of titles vii and xi of the civil rights act of 1964, pp. 9-11 (1968) (hereafter 1964 leg.hist.). [ footnote 10 ] justice blackmun reads the legislative history differently, post at 456 u. s. 494 -499, ..... inadequate. neither contention is persuasive. although the claims presented to the nyhrd and subsequently reviewed by the appellate division were necessarily based on new york law, the alleged discriminatory acts are prohibited by both federal and state laws. [ footnote 20 ] the elements of a successful employment discrimination claim are virtually identical; petitioner could not succeed on a title ..... congressional debates by proponents of the legislation as an example of existing state legislation effectively combating employment discrimination. [ footnote 13 ] nothing in the legislative history of the 1964 act suggests that congress considered it necessary or desirable to provide an absolute right to relitigate in federal court an issue resolved by a state court. while striving to craft .....Tag this Judgment!