In Re MV Securities, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably 744 F. Supp. 531 - Mishkin Ex Rel. Parr Securities Corp. v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. (1990), In Re Adler Coleman Clearing Corp. (1996)
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78E (§ 5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78F (§ 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78I (§ 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on White v. Morgan · Securities & Exchange Commission v. F. O. Baroff Co. · In Re Stalvey & Associates, Inc. · Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Morgan, Kennedy & Co. · Securities and Exchange Com'n v. SJ Salmon & Co., Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ny person (including any person with whom the debtor deals as principal or agent) who has a claim on account of securities received, acquired, or held by the debtor in the ordinary course of its business as a broker or dealer from or for the securities accounts of such person for safekeeping, with a view to sale, to cover consummated sales, pursuant to purchases, as collateral security, or for purposes of effecting transfer. The term "customer” includes any person who has a claim against the debtor arising out of sales or conversions of such securities, and any person who has deposited cash with the debtor for the purpose of purchasing securities, but does not include— (A) any person to the extent that the claim of such person arises out of transactions with a foreign subsidiary of a member of SIPC; or (B) any person to the extent that such person has a claim for cash or securities which by contract, agreement, or understanding, or by operation of law, is part of the capital of the debtor, or is subordinated to the claims of any or all creditors of the debtor, notwithstanding that some ground exists for declaring such contract, agreement, or understanding void or voidable in a suit between the claimant and the debtor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“1) delivery of customer name securities to customers and distribution of customer property and net equity claims as promptly as possible after appointment of a trustee, 2) sale or transfer of offices and other productive units of the debtor’s business, 3) enforcement of rights of subrogation provided by SIPA, and 4) liquidation of the debtor’s business.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.