Wherehouse Entertainment, Inc. v. McMahan & Co.

How later courts describe this case

• declining to apply state statute of limitations to Rule 10b-5 actions because federal statutes are a closer analogy than state law
• comparing scope of these three sections and stating, in dictum, that § 12(2) would apply to an open market transaction
• reading the entire record to find waiver of the right to testify because counsel and not the court is responsible for the formulation of trial strategy
• borrowing § 13 statute of limitations as the closer analogue for § 10(b)
• describing three year requirement of § 13 as being in the nature of a statute of repose, and one year discovery requirement as being in the nature of a statute of limitation
• magistrate who was not authorized to preside over jury selection according to new interpretation of the statute
• "disclosure required by the securities laws is measured not by literal truth, but by the ability of the material to accurately inform rather than mislead prospective buyers"
• describing a typical “daisy chain” scheme for evading the tax