The outcome of Zinn v. Parrish was a verdict in favor of Parrish at the district court level, following a remand from an appellate court.
Zinn v. Parrish: The District Court's Decision
After the case was remanded to the district court, a bench trial was conducted, meaning the case was decided by a judge rather than a jury. The court ultimately ruled in Parrish's favor, determining that the contract between Zinn and Parrish was void.
The primary reason for the contract being voided was Zinn's failure to register under the provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.). This federal statute mandates that individuals or firms providing investment advice for compensation must register with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), unless a specific exemption applies. Zinn's non-registration rendered the agreement unenforceable under the law.
Summary of the Outcome
To provide a clear overview of the decision:
| Aspect | Outcome Detail |
|---|---|
| Winning Party | Parrish |
| Court Level | District Court (on remand) |
| Type of Trial | Bench Trial (decided by a judge) |
| Key Reason | Contract declared void due to Zinn's failure to register as required by the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.) |
| Case Citation | Zinn v. Parrish, 644 F.2d 360 (7th Cir. 1981) |
This decision highlights the critical importance of compliance with federal financial regulations, particularly for those offering investment advice.
