In re E.F. Hutton & Co.
United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Exchange Act Release No. 34-25887, 41 S.E.C. Docket 413 (1988)
- Written by Matthew Celestin, JD
Facts
William Manning (plaintiff) was a sophisticated investor, meaning he had significant knowledge and experience in investing. Manning placed a limit order with E. F. Hutton & Company Inc. (Hutton) (defendant) to sell shares of Genex Corporation stock, which were over-the-counter securities. Manning was aware that Hutton was a registered NASDAQ market maker in Genex. While Hutton was holding Manning’s order, Hutton sold shares of its own Genex stock at prices higher than the price of Manning’s limit order. However, the inside bid price—the highest bid from dealers entering quotations into the NASDAQ system—never reached the price of Manning’s order. The Genex stock price subsequently fell, and Manning’s order was never executed. The National Association of Dealers (NASD) determined that Hutton had breached its fiduciary duty by not prioritizing Manning’s order over its own trades. Hutton appealed to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, arguing that it had no obligation to execute or prioritize Manning’s order because Manning knew of Hutton’s role as a market maker and because the inside bid price never reached the price of Manning’s order.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
Dissent (Grundfest, Comm’r)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
