Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Company

PETITIONER: Radzanower
RESPONDENT: Touche Ross & Company
LOCATION: District Court of Lincoln County

DOCKET NO.: 75-268
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

CITATION: 426 US 148 (1976)
ARGUED: Mar 30, 1976
DECIDED: Jun 07, 1976

ADVOCATES:
Ira Jay Sands - for petitioner
Samuel E. Gates - for respondents

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Company

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 30, 1976 in Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Company

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 07, 1976 in Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Company

Warren E. Burger:

The Judgment and opinion of the Court in 75-268, Radzanower against Touche Ross & Company will be announced Mr. Justice Stewart.

Potter Stewart:

This case is here by way of writ of certiorari granted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The case requires us to determine which venue provision controls in the event a National Banking Association is sued in a Federal Court for allegedly violating the Securities Exchange Act.

The Broad venue provision of the Securities Exchange Act which allows suits under that Act to be brought at any District, where the defendant may be found or the now venue provision of the National Bank Act which allows National Banking Associations to be sued only in the District, where they are established.

The Petitioner Mr. Hyman Radzanower, instituted a class action in the District Court for the Southern District in New York, alleging among other things that the respondent, the First National Bank of Boston, which is a National Banking Association with its principle office in Boston, Massachusetts had violated the Federal Securities Laws by failing to disclose to the Securities and Exchange Commission and to the investing public its knowledge of certain adverse financial information about one of its customers, the TelePrompter Corporation and of securities laws violations by that company.

The complaint alleged that venue was proper under Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act, but the bank moved to dismiss the complaint as to it -- asserting that venue as to it, lay only under Section 94 of the National Bank Act.

Following the settled law of the Second Circuit, the District Court granted the bank's motion to dismiss.

It held that absent a waiver or consent, a National Bank may be sued only in the District in which it is established.

The Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment without opinion and because of differing views in the circuits as to the statutory venue question presented, we granted the petition for certiorari.

For the reasons set out in the Court's written opinion filed with the clerk this morning, we believe that the narrowly drawn specific venue provision of the National Bank Act must prevail over the broader, more generally applicable venue provision of the Securities Exchange Act.

We conclude, therefore, that a National Banking Association is subject to suit under the Securities Exchange Act only in that District wherein it is established and that the judgment before us must accordingly be affirmed.

Mr. Justice Stevens has filed a dissenting opinion.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you, Mr. Justice Stewart.