Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Vigman

587 F.Supp. 1358 (1984)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
S
From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Vigman

United States District Court for the Central District of California
587 F.Supp. 1358 (1984)

Facts

In 1973, two attorneys employed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Gerald Boltz and Charles Hartman, filed two related suits against multiple defendants including DCS Financial Corporation (DCS) and several individuals alleging fraudulent manipulation of the company’s stock. DCS later merged with Bunnington Corporation. Boltz and Hartman left the SEC to work for the law firm of Rogers & Wells. In 1983, Rogers & Wells represented the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) (plaintiff) in filing an action against Seymour Vigman and 74 other individuals and entities, including Bunnington Corporation (defendants), alleging stock manipulation and multiple violations of § 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Boltz and Hartman were the lead attorneys for Rogers & Wells in the suit. Two defendants filed a motion to disqualify Boltz and Hartman from further representing the SIPC on the ground that the former government employees are ethically barred pursuant to Rule 1.11(a) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct from representing a private litigant in a matter connected to their previous government work.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Tashima, 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 777,000 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 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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 777,000 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
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 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

Casebooks

Legal Ethics

Key Terms