Securities - Banks - Venue - Section 94 of the National Bank Act, Rather Than Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Governs Venue in a Securities Action against a National Bank

No Thumbnail Available
Authors
Chatwood, Constance J.
Issue Date
1977
Type
Journal Article
Language
Keywords
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Alternative Title
Abstract
INTRODUCTION|The problem of which venue provision governs in a Securities Exchange Act violation by a national bank has plagued numerous courts. The Securities Exchange Act venue provision permits suit in any district where the defendant may be found, while the National Bank Act allows banking associations to be sued only in the district where they are established.|The Supreme Court, in Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., rendered its answer to the question by determining that the National Bank Act's venue provision controlled in a suit based upon an alleged Securities Exchange Act violation by a national bank. Petitioner Hyman Radzanower initiated a class action suit against respondent First National Bank of Boston, Touche Ross & Co., and others in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the national bank, which has its principal office in Boston, Massachusetts, had violated the federal securities laws. Allegedly, the bank did not disclose to the Securities and Exchange Commission and investors unfavorable financial data about one of its customers, the Teleprompter Corporation, nor did the bank make known Teleprompter's securities laws violations...
Description
Citation
10 Creighton L. Rev. 415 (1976-1977)
Publisher
Creighton University School of Law
License
Journal
Volume
Issue
PubMed ID
DOI
ISSN
EISSN