§Why CasetextPricing

The People of the State of New York by Andrew M. Cuomo,, Respondent,v.Maurice R. Greenberg, et al., Appellants.

Brief

49 Cited authorities

  1. Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain

    503 U.S. 249 (1992)   Cited 2,695 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 1292 applies also to bankruptcy jurisdiction and is not displaced by § 158(d)

  2. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

    505 U.S. 504 (1992)   Cited 2,399 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an express warranty was not a "requirement ... imposed under State law" because the obligation was imposed by the warrantor

  3. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Waffle House, Inc.

    534 U.S. 279 (2002)   Cited 1,483 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a private arbitration agreement between an employee and an employer could not bind a nonparty governmental agency, the EEOC, and thus that the agreement—which was enforceable against the employee under the Federal Arbitration Act—did not limit the types of remedies the agency could seek in an enforcement action it initiated under Title VII

  4. Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.

    552 U.S. 148 (2008)   Cited 1,181 times   80 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the fraud-on-the-market presumption did not apply because business partners' "deceptive acts were not communicated to the public"

  5. Merrill v. Dabit

    547 U.S. 71 (2006)   Cited 668 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state law class action securities fraud claims brought by “holders” of securities are, just like those of “purchasers” and “sellers,” preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act

  6. CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood

    507 U.S. 658 (1993)   Cited 1,032 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding state-law excessive speed claims are preempted by 49 C.F.R. § 213.9

  7. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.

    331 U.S. 218 (1947)   Cited 2,164 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the clear statement rule may be satisfied where "the Act of Congress ... touch[es] a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject."

  8. Zuri-Invest AG v. Natwest Finance Inc.

    177 F. Supp. 2d 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)   Cited 16 times
    Denying motion for partial summary judgment of common-law fraud claim on preemption grounds

  9. CPC International Inc. v. McKesson Corp.

    120 A.D.2d 221 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)   Cited 21 times
    In CPC Intl. v. McKesson Corp. (120 A.D.2d 221), this court held that there is no private right of action under section 352-c of the Martin Act.

  10. Rousseff v. Dean Witter Co., Inc., (N.D.Ind. 1978)

    453 F. Supp. 774 (N.D. Ind. 1978)   Cited 8 times

    Civ. No. F 75-128. June 20, 1978. Martin T. Fletcher, David Travelstead, Fort Wayne, Ind., for plaintiff. Thomas W. Yoder, Edward L. Murphy, Jr., Fort Wayne, Ind., for defendant. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND JUDGMENT ORDER ESCHBACH, Chief Judge. On February 27-28, 1978, this securities action was tried to a jury, by special interrogatories, on three counts. Each count represented a claim based upon a separate legal theory: (1) federal securities law, i. e. 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) [Section 10 of the Securities

  11. Section 77q - Fraudulent interstate transactions

    15 U.S.C. § 77q   Cited 3,297 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the use of "any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud" in connection with the offer or sale of any security

  12. Section 78bb - Effect on existing law

    15 U.S.C. § 78bb   Cited 906 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Adopting definition of "covered security" found in paragraphs and of section 18(b) of the Securities Act of 1933

  13. Section 77p - Additional remedies; limitation on remedies

    15 U.S.C. § 77p   Cited 449 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing certain securities class actions to be removed to federal court

  14. Section 7246 - Fair funds for investors

    15 U.S.C. § 7246   Cited 43 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Creating the "Fair Fund" established by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to distribute disgorgement penalties to defrauded investors

  15. Section 61-1-20 - [Effective 7/1/2024] Enforcement

    Utah Code § 61-1-20   Cited 26 times
    Granting the district court power to "order restitution"

  16. Section 25530 - Injunctive relief; appointment of fiduciary or officer of court; ancillary relief

    Cal. Corp. Code § 25530   Cited 22 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing the Commissioner of Corporations to bring an action in the name of the people of the State of California seeking relief, including but not limited to, a claim for restitution or disgorgement or damages on behalf of persons injured by a violation of section 12401.

  17. Section 44-2032 - Cease and desist orders; civil penalty; injunctions; civil restitution; prosecutions for violations

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2032   Cited 12 times
    Authorizing Commission to transmit information about securities violations to Attorney General for criminal prosecution

  18. Section 59.255 - Enjoining violations; fine; appointment of receiver; attorney fees; damages to private parties

    ORS § 59.255   Cited 10 times

    (1) Whenever it appears to the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services that a person has engaged, is engaging or is about to engage in an act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of the Oregon Securities Law or any rule or order of the director, the director may bring suit in the name and on behalf of the State of Oregon in the circuit court of any county of this state to enjoin the acts or practices and to enforce compliance with the Oregon Securities Law or

  19. Section 49:3-69 - Enforcement actions by bureau chief

    N.J. Stat. § 49:3-69   Cited 10 times

    (a) If it appears to the bureau chief that any person has, or directly or indirectly controls another person who has engaged in, is engaging in, or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of this act or any rule or order hereunder, or if it appears that it will be against the public interest for any person to issue, sell, offer for sale, purchase, offer to purchase, promote, negotiate, advertise or distribute any securities from or within this State, the

  20. Section 21.20.390 - Injunction, cease and desist order, restraining order, mandamus-Appointment of receiver or conservator for insolvent-Restitution or damages-Costs-Accounting

    Wash. Rev. Code § 21.20.390   Cited 6 times

    Whenever it appears to the director that any person has engaged or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of this chapter or any rule or order hereunder, the director may in his or her discretion: (1) Issue an order directing the person to cease and desist from continuing the act or practice and to take appropriate affirmative action within a reasonable period of time, as prescribed by the director, to correct conditions resulting from the act or practice