Legal Opinion
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Glass Marine Industries, Inc.
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided August 31, 1962No. Civ. A. 2276PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LEAHY, Senior District Judge.
I. Preliminary Matters
1. Judicial determination of these charges must rest on determination of intentions of Glass Marine and Hayden Leason which, at best, can only be proved by inference, by acts more convincingly consistent with a fraudulent scheme than a nonfraudulent plan. The basic question in the present cause is whether a pre-existing intent not to go into the boat business existed at the time the Prospectus was issued. Some years ago, in a somewhat similar situation, 1 I stated that:
“Such inference — that there was such a [fraudulent] plan — must be based…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Speed v. Transamerica Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1951
- The Nereide, Bennett, MasterSupreme Court of the United States · 1815
- United States v. BucurCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1952
- Shelby v. Williams and Horney Livestock, Incorporated v. Joseph E. NicholsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1959
- Rice v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1945
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Polaroid Corporation v. CasselmanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1962
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. G. N. Van Horn, Bert Chesnut and Commercial Capital CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1966
- Deterjet Corp. v. UNITED AIRCRAFT CORP.(HAMILTON STAND. DIV.)District Court, D. Delaware · 1962
- In Re Phillips Petroleum Securities LitigationDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1988