§Why CasetextPricing

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Cassidy et al

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 20 MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint.. Document

11 Cited authorities

  1. Basic Inc. v. Levinson

    485 U.S. 224 (1988)   Cited 3,356 times   308 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance

  2. ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd.

    493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 3,898 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because "a plaintiff must show . . . a primary violation by the controlled person" in order to "establish a prima facie case of control[-]person liability," a plaintiff who "fails to allege any primary violation . . . cannot establish control[-]person liability"

  3. TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.

    426 U.S. 438 (1976)   Cited 2,486 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding that materiality may be resolved at summary judgment "if the established omissions are so obviously important to an investor that reasonable minds cannot differ on the question of materiality"

  4. U.S. v. Bilzerian

    926 F.2d 1285 (2d Cir. 1991)   Cited 889 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that while expert "may opine on an issue of fact within the jury's province," he "may not give testimony stating ultimate legal conclusions based on those facts"

  5. Com. Futures Trad. v. R.J. Fitzgerald Co.

    310 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2002)   Cited 104 times
    Holding that scienter is met when a defendant's conduct "involves highly unreasonable omissions or misrepresentations that ... present a danger of misleading [customers] which is either known to the Defendant or so obvious that Defendant must have been aware of it"

  6. Commodity Futures Trading Comm. v. Int'l Financial Serv

    323 F. Supp. 2d 482 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)   Cited 43 times
    Granting the motion to withdraw and allowing proposed answers to be substituted for the default admissions

  7. In re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation

    358 F. Supp. 2d 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)   Cited 26 times
    Finding that allegations that defendants knowingly delivered false reports to trade publications were sufficient to state a CEA claim

  8. Washington v. Township of Hillside City Council

    Civ. A. No. 06-3102 (SRC) (D.N.J. Jun. 30, 2008)   Cited 2 times

    Civ. A. No. 06-3102 (SRC). June 30, 2008 OPINION STANLEY CHESLER, District Judge This matter comes before the Court on the seven motions to dismiss filed by several Defendants to this action and the motions for default as to certain Defendants filed by pro se Plaintiff, Chaplain Toy-Ling Washington. The Court has considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motions, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Defendants' seven motions to dismiss and denies Plaintiff's

  9. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 348,617 times   930 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  10. Section 6c - Prohibited transactions

    7 U.S.C. § 6c   Cited 214 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Defining "spoofing" under the Commodity Exchange Act

  11. Section 33.10 - Fraud in connection with commodity option transactions

    17 C.F.R. § 33.10   Cited 43 times

    It shall be unlawful for any person directly or indirectly: (a) To cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud any other person; (b) To make or cause to be made to any other person any false report or statement thereof or cause to be entered for any person any false record thereof; (c) To deceive or attempt to deceive any other person by any means whatsoever in or in connection with an offer to enter into, the entry into, the confirmation of the execution of, or the maintenance of, any commodity