Wherehouse Entertainment, Inc. v. McMahan & Co.

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 | 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 | Section 10(b) and Rule 10b — 5