Legal Opinion

United States v. Charles Phillip Elliott, William Melhorn

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided August 31, 1995No. 90-3696, 94-2020PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BIRCH, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal, we decide the first-impression issue for our circuit of the requirements for qualification as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-2(a)(ll) and 80b-6. Because we conclude that managers of a number of investment companies were investment advisers who violated the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act, we AFFIRM their convictions. The district court, however, erred in formulating the restitution ordered. We VACATE the previous restitution orders and REMAND for the district court to order restitution…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Hughey v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Silver v. New York Stock ExchangeSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. Rodriguez v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. Lowe v. Securities & Exchange CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1985

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Thomas v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2011
  2. United States v. WarnerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007
  3. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Kenton Capital, Ltd.District Court, District of Columbia · 1998
  4. Goldstein v. Securities & Exchange CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2006
  5. United States v. GilbergCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API