Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.
552 U.S. 148 (2008) Cited 1,184 times 80 Legal AnalysesHolding that the fraud-on-the-market presumption did not apply because business partners' "deceptive acts were not communicated to the public"
Central Bank of Denver v. First I.S. Bk. of Denver
511 U.S. 164 (1994) Cited 1,703 times 79 Legal AnalysesHolding that Section 10(b)’s private right of action does not include suits against aiders and abettors
Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivative Traders
564 U.S. 135 (2011) Cited 569 times 104 Legal AnalysesHolding that a mutual fund adviser may not be found liable for a mutual fund's violation of SEC Rule 10b–5, in part because of “the narrow scope that [courts] must give the implied private right of action”
S.E.C. v. Tambone
597 F.3d 436 (1st Cir. 2010) Cited 535 times 7 Legal AnalysesReinstating portions of withdrawn panel opinion
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Apuzzo
689 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2012) Cited 98 times 8 Legal AnalysesConcluding the complaint plausibly alleged that the defendant provided substantial assistance to the primary violator under the federal securities law by agreeing to participate in the transactions at issue, negotiating the details of the transactions, and, inter alia , approving or knowing about the issuance of inflated invoices
Pacific Investment Management Co. v. Mayer Brown LLP
603 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 103 times 6 Legal AnalysesRejecting scheme liability against defendant who enabled sham transactions which were not communicated to the public
Glickenhaus v. Household Int'l, Inc.
787 F.3d 408 (7th Cir. 2015) Cited 83 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that a CEO who wrote a statement had "ultimate authority" over the statement where another executive read the statement to the media verbatim
Comprehensive Inv. Servs., Inc. v. Mudd (In re Fannie Mae 2008 Sec. Litig.)
891 F. Supp. 2d 458 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) Cited 66 timesDenying defendant Fannie Mae's motion to dismiss stockholders § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims because, in part, stockholders adequately alleged their investment loss was caused by misstatements of risk management controls
Shapiro v. Cantor
123 F.3d 717 (2d Cir. 1997) Cited 83 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding that an accountant cannot be held liable under securities laws where it "did not issue an opinion or certification as to the prospectus"
In re Eugenia VI Venture Holdings, Ltd. Litigation
649 F. Supp. 2d 105 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) Cited 49 timesHolding that "[t]he question of whether a party's reliance was reasonable is always nettlesome because it is so fact-intensive, and ordinarily a question of fact to be determined at trial"
Section 77k - Civil liabilities on account of false registration statement
15 U.S.C. § 77k Cited 2,114 times 86 Legal AnalysesHolding liable for a false registration statement "every person who was a director of . . . or partner in the issuer" at time of filing
Section 77e - Prohibitions relating to interstate commerce and the mails
15 U.S.C. § 77e Cited 1,862 times 25 Legal AnalysesRequiring registration statement before selling securities
Section 77f - Registration of securities
15 U.S.C. § 77f Cited 70 times 2 Legal Analyses(a) Method of registration Any security may be registered with the Commission under the terms and conditions hereinafter provided, by filing a registration statement in triplicate, at least one of which shall be signed by each issuer, its principal executive officer or officers, its principal financial officer, its comptroller or principal accounting officer, and the majority of its board of directors or persons performing similar functions (or, if there is no board of directors or persons performing