BIGGS

v.

SPADER ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (111 total)

• Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185 (U.S. 1976)
  …ep. No. 792, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 5-6 (1934); Note, Implied Liability Under the Securities Exchange Act, 61 Harv. L. Rev. 858, 860 (1948). SEC Release No. 3230 (May 21, 1942); Birnbaum v. Newport Steel Corp., 193 F. 2d 461, 463 (CA2), cert. denied, 343 U. S. 956 (1952). Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., 69 F. Supp. 512 (ED Pa. 1946). See cases cited in n. 12, supra. Compare, e. g., Comment, Scienter and Rule 10b-5, 69 Col. L. Rev. 1057, 1080-1081 (1969); Note, Negligent Misrepresentations under Rule 10b-5, 3…
• Piper v. Chris-Craft Indus., Inc., 430 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1977)
  …express no view on that question. The issue is of secondary importance, since Rule 10b-13 now expressly covers this type of transaction. In Blue Chip, we applied the Birnbaum rule, Birnbaum v. Newport Steel Corp., 193 F. 2d 461 (CA2), cert. denied, 343 U. S. 956 (1952), which limited standing under Rule 10b-5 to purchasers or sellers of securities. Section 9 (a)(6) provides: “(a) It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interst…
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Nat'l Sec., Inc., 393 U.S. 453 (U.S. 1969)
  …the basic principles which hang in the balance. In addition, the Court has chosen to adopt a very loose construction of the requirement, first enunciated by Judge Augustus Hand in Birnbaum v. Newport Steel Corp., 193 F. 2d 461 (1951), cert. denied 343 U. S. 956 (1952), that a transaction must involve a “purchase” or “sale” of securities before it may be found to violate Rule 10b-5. While some commentators have welcomed the erosion of this doctrine, see Lowenfels, The Demise of the Birnbaum Doctrine: A New…