In re Franklin, Meyer & Barnett

37 S.E.C. 47 (1956)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 37,500+ case briefs...

In re Franklin, Meyer & Barnett

Securities and Exchange Commission

37 S.E.C. 47 (1956)


On February 10, 1955, Holly Uranium Corporation (Holly) filed a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (plaintiff) for a public stock offering. Broker-dealer Franklin, Meyer & Barnett (Franklin) (defendant) was a co-underwriter of the offering. On March 30, Franklin distributed a preliminary prospectus to potential customers, along with a cover letter stating that it could not solicit or accept orders until the registration statement became effective. In addition, a Franklin partner instructed Franklin’s salesmen at meetings attended by two other partners that they could accept only indications of interest—and could not accept sales orders—until the shares were registered. The registration statement became effective on April 23. However, between April 1 and April 22, (1) several customers sold other securities in order to pay for Holly shares, with some doing so at the suggestion of Franklin salesmen; (2) several customers sent checks or postal orders to Franklin in the amounts needed to buy Holly shares, with some bearing notations indicating they were sent for that purpose; and (3) one customer sent other stock he owned to Franklin, with a letter confirming his instructions to a salesman to sell that stock and use the proceeds to buy Holly shares. Franklin’s partners did not ask to see any checks that expressly stated they were to buy Holly shares, nor did they try to determine whether any customers identified as having provided indications of interest in Holly shares had actually sent payment. In addition, one salesman sent his business card to several customers, on which he wrote a note urging them to contact him as soon as possible because his allotment of Holly shares was running low. The SEC brought an administrative proceeding to consider whether Franklin should be disciplined for allegedly selling unregistered securities in violation of § 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 and whether certain Franklin salesmen and partners were the cause of any discipline. Based on the immediate corrective action that Franklin undertook, the supervising partners’ only indirect participation in the violations, and the partners’ clean disciplinary records, Franklin offered to accept a 10-day suspension of its membership in the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD).

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 631,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 631,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,500 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 631,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 37,500 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership