47 Cited authorities

Merrill v. Dabit
547 U.S. 71 (2006) Cited 668 times 43 Legal Analyses
Holding that state law class action securities fraud claims brought by “holders” of securities are, just like those of “purchasers” and “sellers,” preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota
504 U.S. 298 (1992) Cited 568 times 157 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[i]n 'modern commercial life' it matters little that . . . solicitation is accomplished by a deluge of catalogs rather than a phalanx of drummers," that the "requirements of due process are met irrespective of a corporation's lack of physical presence in the taxing State," and that due process therefore permits "the imposition of collection duty on a mail-order house that is engaged in continuous and widespread solicitation of business within a State"
Edgar v. MITE Corp.
457 U.S. 624 (1982) Cited 769 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that "matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders" are a corporation's internal affairs
Healy v. the Beer Institute
491 U.S. 324 (1989) Cited 486 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state statute violated the Commerce Clause because it had the practical effect of establishing scale of prices for use in other states
Brown-Forman Distillers v. N.Y. Liquor Auth
476 U.S. 573 (1986) Cited 511 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Twenty-first Amendment does not confer upon the states authority to regulate alcohol prices in other states
Miss. ex rel. Hood v. Au Optronics Corp.
571 U.S. 161 (2014) Cited 216 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the ‘100 or more persons’ referred to in the statute are ... the very ‘plaintiffs’ referred to later in the sentence" and that the word "plaintiffs" means "the actual named parties who bring an action"
Hines v. Davidowitz
312 U.S. 52 (1941) Cited 2,184 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Alien Registration Act of 1940 preempted Pennsylvania's alien registration requirements
CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America
481 U.S. 69 (1987) Cited 382 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding Indiana statute regulating acquisition of corporation stock did not merit heightened scrutiny because it had “same effects on tender offers whether or not the offeror is a domiciliary or resident of Indiana”
Securities & Exchange Commission v. First City Financial Corp.
890 F.2d 1215 (D.C. Cir. 1989) Cited 351 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that remedy of disgorgement may be ordered in an amount "causally related" to the wrongdoing "but disgorgement may not be used punitively"
People v. Applied Card
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 5780 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 201 times
Holding that, when determining whether to apply res judicata to non-parties, courts “must determine whether the severe consequences of preclusion flowing from a finding of privity strike a fair result under the circumstances”
Section 77t - Injunctions and prosecution of offenses
15 U.S.C. § 77t Cited 1,408 times 13 Legal Analyses
Granting the SEC the power to seek civil penalties for violations of the Securities Act
Section 78o - Registration and regulation of brokers and dealers
15 U.S.C. § 78o Cited 977 times 52 Legal Analyses
Requiring broker-dealers to be FINRA members
Section 78bb - Effect on existing law
15 U.S.C. § 78bb Cited 906 times 30 Legal Analyses
Adopting definition of "covered security" found in paragraphs and of section 18(b) of the Securities Act of 1933
Section 63 - General duties
N.Y. Exec. Law § 63 Cited 768 times 39 Legal Analyses
Specifying that in such circumstances the Attorney General or her deputy will exercise the powers the district attorney “would otherwise” hold, and the district attorney is limited to “exercise[ing] such powers . . . as are required of him by the attorney-general or the deputy attorney-general so attending”
Section 352 - Investigation by attorney-general
N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 352 Cited 220 times 9 Legal Analyses
Observing that in such situations "a witness subpoenaed to appear * * * has no constitutional right to * * * counsel" [supra, at 65]

The People of the State of New York by Eric T. Schneiderman,, Respondent,v.Maurice R. Greenberg, et al., Appellants.

47 Cited authorities

Holding that state law class action securities fraud claims brought by “holders” of securities are, just like those of “purchasers” and “sellers,” preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act

Holding that "matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders" are a corporation's internal affairs

Holding that a state statute violated the Commerce Clause because it had the practical effect of establishing scale of prices for use in other states

Holding that the Twenty-first Amendment does not confer upon the states authority to regulate alcohol prices in other states

Holding that "the ‘100 or more persons’ referred to in the statute are ... the very ‘plaintiffs’ referred to later in the sentence" and that the word "plaintiffs" means "the actual named parties who bring an action"

Holding that the Alien Registration Act of 1940 preempted Pennsylvania's alien registration requirements

Holding Indiana statute regulating acquisition of corporation stock did not merit heightened scrutiny because it had “same effects on tender offers whether or not the offeror is a domiciliary or resident of Indiana”

Holding that remedy of disgorgement may be ordered in an amount "causally related" to the wrongdoing "but disgorgement may not be used punitively"

Holding that, when determining whether to apply res judicata to non-parties, courts “must determine whether the severe consequences of preclusion flowing from a finding of privity strike a fair result under the circumstances”

Granting the SEC the power to seek civil penalties for violations of the Securities Act

Requiring broker-dealers to be FINRA members

Adopting definition of "covered security" found in paragraphs and of section 18(b) of the Securities Act of 1933

Observing that in such situations "a witness subpoenaed to appear * * * has no constitutional right to * * * counsel" [supra, at 65]