Securities and Exchange Commission v. Hasho

784 F. Supp. 1059 (1992)

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

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Hasho

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
784 F. Supp. 1059 (1992)

  • Written by Sharon Feldman, JD

Facts

Ben Hasho, William Mecca, Robert Yule, and Aurelio Vuono (the RRs) (defendants) were registered representatives at J.T. Moran & Co. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (plaintiff) filed a complaint against the RRs and others, alleging that their boiler-room operation violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws. After trial, the court found that Hasho told a customer he never lost a penny for any client and the warrants he was recommending would rise $3 or $5 in 30 days, and failed to disclose that the company had negative earnings and its warrants were a speculative investment; Mecca told a customer that his predictions had always been correct, another customer that he had inside information, and a third customer that he would have to buy immediately to get a good price, the stock price would double, and the customer would recoup his money in three months, and failed to disclose that the company lost $4.1 million and screamed and cursed when the customer wanted to cancel the purchase; Yule intimated to a customer that he had inside information and said he knew the stock was going to take off and the customer should buy as much as he could, and recommended to a customer who was about to undergo life-threatening surgery that a stock would be in the double digits in six months and would protect the customer’s family; Vuono represented that the price of warrants he was recommending would increase by $1.25 to $1.75 per share in a few months and failed to disclose that the company had historical losses; Hasho, Mecca, and Yule misrepresented that customers would recoup past losses through the recommended stock purchases; and all RRs discouraged sell orders through high-pressure sales tactics.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Edelstein, 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 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