Circuit split · securities law
Whether section 14(d)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act (Williams Act) creates an implied private right of action
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- Epstein v. MCA, Inc.50 F3D 644
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · February 27, 1995
“10 In advancing this argument, Matsushita asks us to create a conflict with the Second and Third Circuits, both of which have held that Congress intended to create a private right of action under section 14(d)(7).” — Creates a split
Empirical analysis of this case →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- Joined by · 3d Cir.Polaroid Corp. v. Disney862 F.2d 987
- Joined by · 2d Cir.Field v. Trump850 F.2d 938
- Joined by · 2d Cir.Pryor v. United States Steel Corp.794 F.2d 52
“United States Steel Corp., 794 F.2d 52 , 57-58 (2d Cir.) (holding that section 14(d)(6) also contains a private right of action), cert.” — Epstein v. MCA, Inc., acknowledging the split
What the split turns on
- Statutes:
- 15 U.S.C. § 78n(d)(6), (7)
- Doctrines & tests:
- four-factor Cort v. Ash test
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.