Full text
Samuel M. OPPER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HANCOCK SECURITIES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant

Loading…
Opinion
367 F.2d 157 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 5, 1966
Full text
Samuel M. OPPER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HANCOCK SECURITIES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant
Third Circuit · Jun 19, 1997
N.D. New York · Sep 11, 1996
D. New Jersey · Dec 15, 1995
D. Colorado · May 16, 1991
S.D. New York · Jan 14, 1988
S.D. New York · Dec 21, 1987
S.D. New York · Apr 9, 1987
S.D. New York · Jan 15, 1987
D. Massachusetts · Dec 11, 1986
Ninth Circuit · May 24, 1982
Parentheticals
assuming validity of cause of action based on 15 U.S.C. § 78o(c) (1)
“. . . [F]or the purposes that concern us here, it made no difference whether defendant operated ‘as principal’ or ‘as broker’ . . . .”
delay in executing sale is actionable under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,861 Gerald Mansbach v. Prescott, Ball & Turben
dealer claimed to be searching unsuccessfully for buyer to purchase customer's stock, while at the same time trading in that same stock profitably for its own account