Section 78j – Manipulative and Deceptive Devices

Legal documents with cease and desist letter in Florida

Short Summary

In short, Section 78j of the U.S. Code prohibits manipulative and deceptive practices in securities transactions, outlining rules against fraudulent activities, insider trading, and specific trading strategies that could harm investors or the financial system.

It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange—

(a)

(1)

To effect a short sale, or to use or employ any stop-loss order in connection with the purchase or sale, of any security other than a government security, in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.

(2)

Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to security futures products.

(b)To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, or any securities-based swap agreement^1 any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.

(c)

(1)

To effect, accept, or facilitate a transaction involving the loan or borrowing of securities in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.

(2)

Nothing in paragraph (1) may be construed to limit the authority of the appropriate Federal banking agency (as defined in section 1813(q) of title 12), the National Credit Union Administration, or any other Federal department or agency having a responsibility under Federal law to prescribe rules or regulations restricting transactions involving the loan or borrowing of securities in order to protect the safety and soundness of a financial institution or to protect the financial system from systemic risk.

Rules promulgated under subsection (b) that prohibit fraud, manipulation, or insider trading (but not rules imposing or specifying reporting or recordkeeping requirements, procedures, or standards as prophylactic measures against fraud, manipulation, or insider trading), and judicial precedents decided under subsection (b) and rules promulgated thereunder that prohibit fraud, manipulation, or insider trading, shall apply to security-based swap agreements to the same extent as they apply to securities. Judicial precedents decided under section 77q(a) of this title and sections 78i, 78o, 78p, 78t, and 78u-1 of this title, and judicial precedents decided under applicable rules promulgated under such sections, shall apply to security-based swap agreements to the same extent as they apply to securities.

^1 So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma.

15 U.S.C. § 78j

June 6, 1934, ch. 404, title I, §10, 48 Stat. 891; Pub. L. 106-554, §1(a)(5) [title II, §206(g), title III, §303(d)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-432, 2763A-454; Pub. L. 111-203, title VII, §762(d)(3), title IX, §§929L(2), 984(a), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1761, 1861, 1932.

EDITORIAL NOTES

AMENDMENTS

2010- Pub. L. 111-203, §762(d)(3)(B), which directed amendment of the matter following subsection (b) “by striking ‘(as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), in each place that such terms appear’ “, was executed by striking out “(as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act)” after “security-based swap agreements” in two places in concluding provisions following subsec. (c) to reflect the probable intent of Congress. Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 111-203, §929L(2), substituted “other than a government security” for “registered on a national securities exchange”. Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 111-203, §762(d)(3)(A), struck out “(as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act),” after “securities-based swap agreement”. Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 111-203, §984(a), which directed amendment of this section by adding subsec. (c) at the end, was executed by adding subsec. (c) after subsec. (b) to reflect the probable intent of Congress. 2000- Pub. L. 106-554, §1(a)(5) [title III, §303(d)(2)], inserted concluding provisions at end. Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106-554, §1(a)(5) [title II, §206(g)], designated existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2). Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 106-554, §1(a)(5) [title III, §303(d)(1)], inserted “or any securities-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act),” before “any manipulative or deceptive device”.

STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2010 AMENDMENT Amendment by sections 929L(2) and 984(a) of Pub. L. 111-203 effective 1 day after July 21, 2010, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 111-203 set out as an Effective Date note under section 5301 Title 12, Banks and Banking. Amendment by section 762(d)(3) of Pub. L. 111-203 effective on the later of 360 days after July 21, 2010, or, to the extent a provision of subtitle B (§§761-774) of title VII of Pub. L. 111-203 requires a rulemaking, not less than 60 days after publication of the final rule or regulation implementing such provision of subtitle B, see section 774 of Pub. L. 111-203 set out as a note under section 77b of this title.

REGULATIONS Pub. L. 111-203, title IX, §984(b), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1933, provided that: “Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act [July 21, 2010], the Commission shall promulgate rules that are designed to increase the transparency of information available to brokers, dealers, and investors, with respect to the loan or borrowing of securities.”[For definitions of terms used in section 984(b) of Pub. L. 111-203 set out above, see section 5301 of Title 12, Banks and Banking.]

PROHIBITION OF INSIDER TRADING Pub. L. 112-105, §4(a), Apr. 4, 2012, 126 Stat. 292, provided that: “Members of Congress and employees of Congress are not exempt from the insider trading prohibitions arising under the securities laws, including section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [ 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) ] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.”

APPLICATION OF INSIDER TRADING LAWS Pub. L. 112-105, §9(b)(1), Apr. 4, 2012, 126 Stat. 297, provided that: “Executive branch employees, judicial officers, and judicial employees are not exempt from the insider trading prohibitions arising under the securities laws, including section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [ 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) ] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.”

EXECUTIVE DOCUMENTS

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONSFor transfer of functions of Securities and Exchange Commission, with certain exceptions, to Chairman of such Commission, see Reorg. Plan No. 10 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3175, 64 Stat. 1265, set out under section 78d of this title.

Legal Disclaimer

The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal or tax advice. The content presented is not intended to be a substitute for professional legal, tax, or financial advice, nor should it be relied upon as such. Readers are encouraged to consult with their own attorney, CPA, and tax advisors to obtain specific guidance and advice tailored to their individual circumstances. No responsibility is assumed for any inaccuracies or errors in the information contained herein, and John Montague and Montague Law expressly disclaim any liability for any actions taken or not taken based on the information provided in this article.

Contact Info

Address: 5422 First Coast Highway
Suite #125
Amelia Island, FL 32034

Phone: 904-234-5653

More Articles

Illustration of AI ethics and responsibilities

Elon Musk OpenAI Lawsuit: Navigating the Future of AI Ethics and Governance

Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI marks a turning point, questioning the ethics and direction of AI development. At heart, the dispute reflects a clash between Musk’s vision for open, beneficial AI and OpenAI’s alleged shift towards profit-driven practices. This case not only scrutinizes OpenAI’s commitments but also prompts a wider debate on the future of AI, emphasizing the need for transparency and ethical stewardship in technology.

Read More