81 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 267,097 times   365 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
  2. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,131 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"
  3. Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org.

    426 U.S. 26 (1976)   Cited 3,186 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiffs who sued IRS lacked standing where they hoped reversal of IRS rule would " ‘discourage’ hospitals from denying their services to" plaintiffs, but whether hospitals had denied services based on the existing rule remained unclear and, even if the rule were reversed, hospitals would remain free to not provide services to plaintiffs
  4. ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd.

    493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 3,876 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that deception occurs when "investors are misled to believe that prices at which they purchase and sell securities are determined by the natural interplay of supply and demand, not rigged by manipulators"
  5. Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.

    429 U.S. 477 (1977)   Cited 2,064 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mere economic loss does not amount to an antitrust injury under the antitrust laws
  6. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Co.

    313 U.S. 487 (1941)   Cited 10,485 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Erie doctrine applies to conflict-of-law rules
  7. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co.

    495 U.S. 328 (1990)   Cited 835 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an antitrust injury is an injury that is "attributable to an anti-competitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny"
  8. In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation

    618 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2010)   Cited 1,462 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that per se "hub and spoke" theory was not properly pled when complaint detailed specific agreements between multiple insurers and a single broker, but did not allege facts such that the court could infer that the insurers had agreed horizontally to enter into their respective agreements with the broker
  9. Koch v. Christie's International PLC

    699 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2012)   Cited 1,285 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that discovery accrual rule announced in Rotella continues to be controlling law
  10. Corsello v. Verizon N.Y., Inc.

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 2343 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 961 times
    Holding that "[t]o the extent that these claims succeed, the unjust enrichment claim is duplicative; if plaintiffs' other claims are defective, an unjust enrichment claim cannot remedy the defects"
  11. Section 78j - Manipulative and deceptive devices

    15 U.S.C. § 78j   Cited 12,510 times   165 Legal Analyses
    Granting SEC power to establish rules to further statute forbidding manipulative or deceptive devices in connection with purchase or sale of securities
  12. Section 15 - Suits by persons injured

    15 U.S.C. § 15   Cited 5,677 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Granting private right of action to anyone who has been injured "by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws ..."
  13. Section 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 2,912 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Making illegal "[e]very contract, combination ..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade"
  14. Section 15b - Limitation of actions

    15 U.S.C. § 15b   Cited 898 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Establishing a four-year limitations period for antitrust claims
  15. Section 202 - Cause of action accruing without the state

    N.Y. CPLR 202   Cited 582 times
    Limiting the limitations period for causes of action accruing outside of New York where the foreign jurisdiction imposes a shorter statute of limitations than the state does
  16. Section 2 - Jurisdiction of Commission; liability of principal for act of agent; Commodity Futures Trading Commission; transaction in interstate commerce

    7 U.S.C. § 2   Cited 511 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Adopting respondeat superior principles for regulatory actions brought by the Commodity Exchange Commission
  17. Section 1a - Definitions

    7 U.S.C. § 1a   Cited 323 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Defining "excluded commodity" under Commodity Exchange Act
  18. Section 9 - Prohibition regarding manipulation and false information

    7 U.S.C. § 9   Cited 301 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing the CFTC to seek to prohibit from future trading any person who "has willfully made any false or misleading statement of a material fact in any registration application or any report filed with the Commission"
  19. Section 25 - Private rights of action

    7 U.S.C. § 25   Cited 277 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Granting federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over private claims brought under the CEA
  20. Section 13 - Violations generally; punishment; costs of prosecution

    7 U.S.C. § 13   Cited 261 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Pertaining to punishment for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act
  21. Section 180.1 - Prohibition on the employment, or attempted employment, of manipulative and deceptive devices

    17 C.F.R. § 180.1   Cited 103 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Focusing on the use or employment, or attempted use or employment of any manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to defraud in connection with, as relevant here, any swap
  22. Section 180.2 - Prohibition on price manipulation

    17 C.F.R. § 180.2   Cited 18 times   3 Legal Analyses

    It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to manipulate or attempt to manipulate the price of any swap, or of any commodity in interstate commerce, or for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any registered entity. 17 C.F.R. §180.2

  23. Section 160.3 - Definitions

    17 C.F.R. § 160.3

    For purposes of this part, unless the context requires otherwise: (a)Affiliate of a futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, introducing broker, major swap participant, or swap dealer means any company that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator, introducing broker, major swap participant, or