Legal Opinion
Gould v. Ruefenacht
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided May 28, 1985No. 84-165PublishedCited by 53 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Powell
This case presents the question whether the sale of 50% of the stock of a company is a securities transaction subject to the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws (the Acts).
I
In 1980, respondent Ruefenacht (hereafter respondent) purchased 2,500 shares of the stock of Continental Import & Export, Inc., an importer of wine and spirits, from Joachim Birkle. Birkle was Continental’s president and had owned 100% of the company’s stock prior to the time of the sale. The 2,500 shares, for which respondent paid $250,000, represented 50% of Continental’s outstanding stock.
According to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. FormanSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,815 Jeffrey E. Frederiksen and Emerald City Corporation, an Illinois Corporation v. Edward T. PolowayCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981
- McGrath v. Zenith Radio Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,656 Arthur Golden and Gladys Golden v. Anthony GarafaloCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,783 Anthony A. Sutter v. E. B. Groen and Naomi GroenCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by53 opinions
- In Re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation. Appeals of Robert A. HugginsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
- One-O-One Enterprises, Inc. v. Richard E. CarusoCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1988
- Specialized Tours, Inc. v. HagenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Perez-Rubio v. WyckoffDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1989
- U.S. Industries, Inc. v. Touche Ross & Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1988
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.