| 關 鍵 詞： |
詐欺計畫；暫時救濟；1934 年證券交易法；委託書的徵求；揭露；保險交易；商業條款；麥克倫－福克森法；保險業；年金契約；1933 年證券法；保險證券；詐欺性的虛偽陳述；無出售行為原則；有關任何證券的買或賣 |
| 中文摘要： |
1. 可否歸屬於保險的範圍，其著重點在於是否為保險公司及保戶間之關係。為直接或間接保護或管理此一關係的法律，就是規範「保險業」的法律。
2. 於本案中所涉及的問題，顯然是不同的問題。亞利桑那州政府想要規範的對象並非「保險」關係，而是股東與公司間之關係。此已非保險規範，而是證券規範。本案的重點是股東的保護而非保戶的利益。此類的規範並非 McCarran-Ferguson Act 所適用的範疇。
3. 州的證券法規與聯邦證券法規可以同時併存，但是州的保險證券規範並不能排除聯邦的規定。依據本案，即便亞利桑那州政府是有意保障保險公司股東的利益，也不會因此使聯邦證券法規不能適用。
4. Section 14 及 Section 10（b）（與 Rule 10b-5）此二條文適用於不同的場合。Section 10（b）規定有關任何證券的買或賣之行為；Section 14 適用於所有的委託書徵求行為，無論是否有關買或賣。兩者間存有規範上的重疊並非不尋常或出於偶然。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
fraudulent scheme；temporary relief；Securities Exchange Act of 1934；solicitation of proxy；disclosure；insurance transaction；Commerce Clause；McCarran-Ferguson Act；business of insurance；annuity contract；Securities Act of 1933；insurance securities；fraudulent misrepresentation；no-sale doctrine；in connection with the purchase or sale of any security |
| 英文摘要： |
（[W]hatever the exact scope of the statutory term, it is clear where the focus was - it
was on the relationship between the insurance company and the policyholder. Statutes aimed at protecting or regulating this relationship, directly or indirectly, are laws regulating the “business of insurance.”）
（In this case, Arizona is concerning itself with a markedly different set of problems. It is attempting to regulate not the "insurance" relationship, but the relationship between a stockholder and the company in which he owns stock. This is not insurance regulation, but securities regulation. It is true that the state statute applies only to insurance companies. But mere matters of form need not detain us. The crucial point is that here the State has focused its attention on stockholder protection; it is not attempting to secure the interests of those purchasing insurance policies. Such regulation is not within the scope of the McCarran-Ferguson Act.）
（Of course, under the securities laws state regulation may co-exist with that offered under the federal securities laws. But it has never been held that state regulation of insurance securities pre-empts federal regulation, on the theory that the federal securities laws would be “superseding” state laws regulating the “business of insurance.” The fact that Arizona purports to protect the interests of insurance company stockholders does not, therefore, by itself render the federal securities laws inapplicable.）
（The two sections of the Act apply to different sets of situations. Section 10 （b） applies to all proscribed conduct in connection with a purchase or sale of any security; § 14 applies to all proxy solicitations, whether or not in connection with a purchase or sale. The fact that there may well be some overlap is neither unusual nor unfortunate.）
|
| 目 次： |
判決要旨
關鍵詞
事實
判決
理由
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|