(Download) "Mcmann v. Securities and Exchange Commission" by Second Circuit Circuit Court Of Appeals ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Mcmann v. Securities and Exchange Commission
- Author : Second Circuit Circuit Court Of Appeals
- Release Date : January 18, 1937
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 64 KB
Description
This is an appeal from a decree denying an injunction pendente lite in a suit brought by the plaintiff, McMann, against his brokers, Engel & Co., in which the Securities & Exchange Commission has intervened. The application was to prevent the brokers from complying with two subpoenas duces tecum issued by the Commission, the first requiring them to produce before one of its examiners a copy of McManns account between December 1, 1935, and March, 1936; and the second, a copy of the same account from August 1, 1935, to November 30th, together with "the opening position" on the first day, and "the closing position" on the last. McMann had been a customer of Engel & Co. for some time and had employed them in numerous transactions in stocks, among them in shares of the Budd Wheel Company and of the Wil-Low Cafeterias, Inc.; the Commission had begun an investigation into transactions in the shares of these companies, and more particularly into the conduct of McMann and others who were suspected of having paid persons, ostensibly disinterested, to recommend the purchase of these stocks by the public. These payments did not appear from the execution of McManns orders for the purchase and sale of the stocks in question; the whole account was necessary to disclose them. Engel & Co. were ready to obey the subpoenas, and will do so if not enjoined; but McMann asserts a constitutional immunity against any disclosure to the Commission of information contained in the books. He argues that, as all the transactions were confidential, the information was privileged and protected by the Fourth Amendment; it was "property" in which he alone was interested. Furthermore, the subpoenas independently infringe his immunity as "unreasonable searches." Finally, he asserts that he may protect himself by injunction, because, if the information be once disclosed, the injury is irreparable. The judge denied the motion and McMann appealed.