§Why CasetextPricing

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Royal Bank of Canada

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 111 MOTION for Summary Judgment . . Document

21 Cited authorities

  1. Gallo v. Prudential Residential Services

    22 F.3d 1219 (2d Cir. 1994)   Cited 4,382 times
    Holding that a firm's decision to implement a reduction-in-force "to meet its budgetary goals" during "a business downturn" was a legitimate reason for terminating an employee

  2. Graham v. Long Island R.R

    230 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 2,010 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even if plaintiff could demonstrate that failed drug test proffered by defendant as ground for dismissal was in error, that showing would not demonstrate that reliance on test was pretext for discrimination

  3. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor

    478 U.S. 833 (1986)   Cited 722 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the CFTC's adjudicative functions did not violate separation of powers

  4. Gabelli v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n

    568 U.S. 442 (2013)   Cited 314 times   96 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statute of limitations for SEC enforcement actions begins when fraudulent action occurs

  5. Shields v. Citytrust Bancorp, Inc.

    25 F.3d 1124 (2d Cir. 1994)   Cited 1,805 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that scienter cannot be "base[d] . . . on speculation and conclusory allegations"

  6. Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Simon

    310 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,027 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a dismissal, with prejudice, arising out of a settlement agreement, operates as a final judgment for res judicata purposes"

  7. In re Dana Corp.

    574 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 362 times
    Holding that "[c]onfidential proprietary data relating to pricing, costs, systems, and methods are protected by trade secret law"

  8. Commodity Futures Trading Com'n v. Savage

    611 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1980)   Cited 810 times
    Holding that "an action for injunctive relief by the [US]CFTC under section 40 requires only that the violator have acted intentionally. That is, he must have intended to employ the 'device, scheme, or artifice' but it is not necessary that he know that its result will be to defraud the client or prospective client."

  9. Fait v. Regions Financial Corp..

    655 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2011)   Cited 203 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "statements regarding the adequacy of loan loss reserves" are statements of opinion

  10. Nationwide Life Insurance v. Bankers Leasing

    182 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 1999)   Cited 208 times
    Commenting that "summary judgment is a `drastic device, since its prophylactic function, when exercised, cuts off a party's right to present his case to the jury,'" and so "the moving party bears a heavy burden of demonstrating the absence of any material issues of fact."

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,019 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit