Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

SEC v. Edwards

Docket No.: 02-1196
Certiorari Granted: Apr 21 2003
Argued: November 4, 2003
Decided: January 13, 2004

Topics:

Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act, Economic Activity, Federal Regulation of Securities, Fourth Amendment, Securities Act of 1933, immigration, murder, privacy

PartyNames: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Charles E. Edwards
Petitioner: Securities and Exchange Commission
Respondent: Charles E. Edwards

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Citation: CA 11, 300 F.3d 1281. QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the court of appeals erred in dism issing the complaint on the ground thatan investment scheme is excluded from the term "investment contract" in the definitions of "security" in Section 2(a)(1 ) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C.77b(a)(1), and Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10), if the promoter promises a fix ed rather than variable return or if the investor is contractually entitled to a particular amount or rate of return.
Supreme Court Docket

Securities and Exchange Commission
v.
Charles E. Edwards
540 U.S. 389 (2004)
Question:

Does the Securities Exchange Act's (1934) term "investment contract" include an investment scheme in which the promoter promises a fixed return or the investor is entitled to a particular rate of return?

Note:

. CA 11, 300 F.3d 1281. QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the court of appeals erred in dism issing the complaint on the ground thatan investment scheme is excluded from the term "investment contract" in the definitions of "security" in Section 2(a)(1 ) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C.77b(a)(1), and Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10), if the promoter promises a fix ed rather than variable return or if theinvestor is contractually entitled to a particular amount or rate of return. CERT. GRANTED: 4/21/03

SEC v. Edwards
ORAL ARGUMENT

November 4, 2003

Holding: reversed and remanded
Decision: Decision: 9 votes for SEC, 0 vote(s) against
Vote: 9-0
Opinion By:

SEC v. Edwards
Case Documents

1Slip Opinion in SEC v. Edwards
2Opinion in SEC v. Edwards
3Opinion in SEC v. Edwards
Additional documents for this case are pending review.