Superintendent of Insurance v. Bankers Life & Casualty Company

Supreme Court of the United States · 1971 · Corporations

404 U.S. 6 (1971)

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsSecurities fraudRule 10b-5Section 10(b)10(b)in connection withdeceptive devicemisappropriation

Facts

Bankers Life agreed to sell all of Manhattan Casualty's stock to Begole for $5,000,000. It was alleged that Begole, Bourne, and others financed that purchase by using Manhattan's own assets, including causing Manhattan to sell its Treasury bonds for $4,854,552.67 and using those proceeds to cover the purchase price. Manhattan's board was allegedly deceived into authorizing the bond sale by the representation that the proceeds would be exchanged for a certificate of deposit of equal value. Although Manhattan's books reflected a bond sale and purchase of a certificate of deposit, they did not show that Manhattan's assets had been used to buy its own stock or that the certificate had been assigned and pledged away.

Issue

Whether allegations that a corporation was deceived into selling Treasury bonds and then deprived of the sale proceeds state a claim under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. More specifically, the question was whether fraud connected to the sale is covered even though the bonds were sold at full market price and the proceeds were later misappropriated.

Rule

Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 prohibit the use of any manipulative or deceptive device in connection with the purchase or sale of any security, and the statute is to be read flexibly rather than technically or restrictively. A corporation that sells securities is protected as an investor, and a claim exists when deceptive practices touching that sale deprive the corporation of the benefit of the transaction, even if the securities were sold for full value, the fraud was committed by corporate insiders with outside collaborators, the transaction was not on an exchange, or the proceeds were misappropriated.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, the board of Maple Shield Insurance approved the sale of the company’s municipal bonds after its new president, Derek Voss, told directors the cash would remain in Maple Shield’s treasury for claim reserves. The bonds were sold in a private transaction for fair market value, but Derek immediately wired the proceeds to a lender that had financed his allies’ recent acquisition of Maple Shield stock.

Maple Shield’s receiver sues under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Which is the strongest argument that the complaint states a federal securities-fraud claim?

Explanation. The majority held that § 10(b) reaches a deceptive scheme used in connection with a corporation’s sale of securities when the corporation is duped into believing it will receive the proceeds but is instead deprived of them. Full market price does not defeat the claim. Nor is coverage limited to market-price distortion or exchange integrity.