Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. First Entertainment Holding Corp.
Colorado Court of Appeals
36 P.3d 175, 45 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 610, 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 4412 (2001)

- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
The board of First Entertainment Holding Corp. (First Entertainment) (defendant) decided to give stock options to one of its directors, Abraham Goldberg (plaintiff), but later changed its mind and canceled a portion of the stock options. Stock options are a type of uncertificated security. Goldberg challenged First Entertainment’s right to cancel the options, and he filed suit. A trial court ordered First Entertainment to place the disputed stock options in the possession of the clerk of the court. Although First Entertainment received the court’s notice and wrote a letter in response, First Entertainment did not give the stock options to the clerk of the court. The trial court issued First Entertainment a contempt citation. First Entertainment appealed. At trial, an expert for Securities Investor Protection Corporation (plaintiff) gave testimony that in order to transfer the stock options to the clerk of the court, First Entertainment would have needed to record the transfer either to Securities Investor Protection Corporation or to the clerk of the court in its corporate books and to provide the clerk with an acknowledgment of the transfer. Additional evidence provided at the trial showed that First Entertainment was aware of how to effect a transfer of an uncertificated security, and that it had the capacity to do so.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Davidson, J.)
What to do next…
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.