Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation (Chenery II)

United States Supreme Court
332 U.S. 194 (1947)

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation (Chenery II)


The Federal Water Service Corporation (Federal) sought the approval of a complicated reorganization from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (defendant). The majority of Federal’s shareholders owned preferred stock that did not include voting rights. Chenery Corporation (Chenery) (plaintiff) owned a controlling block of common stock that did include voting rights, which allowed Chenery to select Federal’s corporate management. The SEC determined that Federal’s reorganization was required to include a conversion of preferred stock to common stock, such that the majority of shareholders would have voting rights. Chenery obtained preferred stock at market price in anticipation of this conversion, in order to maintain a controlling interest in the voting rights. The SEC determined that Chenery had to divest the recently obtained preferred stock in order to adequately distribute shareholder voting power. The SEC justified this determination through an understanding of judicial precedent that corporate management could not trade in a corporation’s stock during a reorganization due to the management’s fiduciary obligation to all shareholders. Chenery challenged this decision, and the United States Supreme Court held that the SEC’s understanding of the judicial precedent was incorrect. The SEC then reconsidered the issue and again came to the same conclusion based on the purposes and standards of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 803. Chenery challenged the decision again, and the court of appeals reversed the SEC’s decision, finding that the SEC did not have the authority to make a determination that was not based on a promulgated rule. The SEC appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Murphy, J.)

Dissent (Jackson, J.)

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 499,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 499,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial