Legal Opinion
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Edwards
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided January 13, 2004No. 02-1196PublishedCited by 105 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice O’Connor
“Opportunity doesn’t always knock . . . sometimes it rings.” App. 113 (ETS Payphones promotional brochure). And sometimes it hangs up. So it did for the 10,000 people who invested a total of $300 million in the payphone sale- and-leaseback arrangements touted by respondent under that slogan. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) argues that the arrangements were investment contracts, and thus were subject to regulation under the federal securities laws. In this case, we must decide whether a moneymaking scheme is excluded from the term “investment contract” simply because the scheme…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. FormanSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Saudi Arabia v. NelsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Reves v. Ernst & YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. ZandfordSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by105 opinions
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. ShieldsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2014
- Calderon-Serra v. Wilimington Trust CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2013
- Rendell v. Pennsylvania State Ethics CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. ETS Payphones, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2005
- United States v. LeonardCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
100 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.