In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

Exchange Act Release No. 14149 (1977)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

Securities and Exchange Commission
Exchange Act Release No. 14149 (1977)

Facts

Scientific Control Corporation (Scientific) was in business between May 1964 and its November 1969 bankruptcy, during which time it never made a profit. In 1968 and 1969, broker-dealer Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.’s (Merrill) (defendant) research analyst Pierce recommended clients buy or hold Scientific stock, which Merrill classified as a speculative and growth investment. These recommendations mainly were based on information Pierce received from Scientific’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings or from direct communications with Scientific. Pierce did not scrutinize Scientific’s often unjustifiably optimistic or false information and ignored red flags indicating that the information Scientific provided was unreliable. In addition, some of the Scientific-provided information was material and nonpublic. Pierce’s recommendations were conveyed to clients by Merrill’s account executives (defendants). Some account executives also communicated unsupported positive statements about Scientific, including (1) specific, optimistic predictions about its future stock price; (2) favorable comparisons with well-established companies; (3) claims that its stock would be listed on a stock exchange; and (4) an inaccurate newspaper article about it. Some account executives also engaged in high-pressure sales tactics. The SEC instituted an administrative proceeding against Merrill, Pierce, and 47 account executives to determine (1) whether they willfully violated § 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or SEC Rule 10b-5 (collectively, the antifraud provisions) and (2) whether Merrill and an employee failed reasonably to supervise Merrill’s compliance with the antifraud provisions. The account executives defended their stock-price predictions because they purportedly were phrased as contingencies and not as guarantees. Merrill offered to settle the proceeding by (1) accepting a censure, (2) paying $1.6 million in compensation, (3) adopting new guidelines for research and sales activities, and (4) strengthening its account-executive training program as necessary. In addition, seven Merrill employees offered to accept suspensions and censures, and 22 employees offered to accept censures.

Rule of Law

Issue

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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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 832,000 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
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 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