# Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis

> Supreme Court of the United States · November 13, 1979 · 444 U.S. 11

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427719

## Case

- **Full name:** TRANSAMERICA MORTGAGE ADVISORS, INC. (TAMA), Et Al. v. LEWIS
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** November 13, 1979
- **Citations:** 444 U.S. 11; 100 S. Ct. 242; 62 L. Ed. 2d 146; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 150
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Powell
- **Judges:** Stewart, Burger, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, White, Bhennan, Marshall, Stevens
- **Cited by:** 1,356 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427719

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that there is no private right of action under Section 206, noting that “[Section] § 206 simply proscribes certain conduct, and does not in terms create or alter any civil liabilities. If monetary liability to a private plaintiff is to be found, it must be read into th…
- holding that “[w]hile some opinions of the Court have placed considerable emphasis upon the desirability of implying private rights of action in order to provide remedies thought to effectuate the purposes of a given statute, [] what must ultimately be determined is whether Co…
- finding it significant that, “[u]nder each of the securities laws that preceded the Act here in question, and under the Investment Company Act of 1940 which was enacted as companion legislation, Congress expressly authorized private suits for damages in prescribed circumstances”
- holding that Congress intended that "customary legal incidents" of contract voidness, including a private right to sue for rescission, an injunction, or restitution, would follow from its statutory declaration that certain contracts "shall be void"
- holding that § 206(2) 2 establishes “federal fiduciary standards” that govern the conduct of investment advisors

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Powell,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion, which I view as compatible with my dissent in Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 730 (1979). Ante, at 19-21.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427719. Public record. Not legal advice.