skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 163696 Find in a Library
Title: Gustafson v Alloyd Co.: An Opinion That Did Not Write (From Supreme Court Review, P 99-124, 1996, Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, et al, eds. - See NCJ 163692)
Author(s): E W Kitch
Date Published: 1996
Page Count: 26
Sponsoring Agency: University of Chicago Press
Chicago, IL 60637
Sale Source: University of Chicago Press
1427 East 60th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
United States of America
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gustafson v. Alloyd concludes that this decision regarding securities law had major flaws and may indicate more and greater changes to come.
Abstract: This case involved the requirement of accurate information regarding an offer or sale of a security, as stated in section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. The Court's decision overturned attorneys' longstanding understanding regarding the meaning of the term prospectus. Attorneys had taken a broad view. However, the Court took a narrow view by limiting the scope of section 12(2) to misrepresentations made in connection with offerings required to be registered under the securities law. However, the text of the law does not support the Court's narrow interpretation. This Gustafson decision has a small immediate impact on the securities laws, but it is significant that the court made such an unpersuasive argument to reduce the scope of a private cause of action for misrepresentation in the sale of securities. This decisions and earlier ones either expanding or reducing private remedies reflect unsophisticated, fragmentary, and unconvincing analyses. However, no previous decision in this area is as unpersuasive as that in Gustafson. Footnotes
Main Term(s): US Supreme Court decisions
Index Term(s): Legal doctrines; Securities fraud
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.