§Why CasetextPricing

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cuban

Brief/Memorandum in Support

51 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 273,590 times   368 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

  2. Ernst Ernst v. Hochfelder

    425 U.S. 185 (1976)   Cited 3,500 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Section 9(f) “contains a state-of-mind condition requiring something more than negligence”

  3. In re Katrina Canal

    495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007)   Cited 4,705 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that flood exclusion provisions in State Farm policy covered damage caused by flooding due to breached levees

  4. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins

    304 U.S. 64 (1938)   Cited 20,616 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues

  5. O'Melveny & Myers v. Federal Deposit Insurance

    512 U.S. 79 (1994)   Cited 898 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal statutory scheme detailing what claims could be made against the FDIC when it is acting as receiver necessarily excluded claims not mentioned in the statute

  6. Chiarella v. United States

    445 U.S. 222 (1980)   Cited 983 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that duty to disclose under Rule 10b-5 arises from fiduciary relationship

  7. Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green

    430 U.S. 462 (1977)   Cited 1,072 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Securities Exchange Act is limited in scope to its textual provisions and does not conflict with state law regarding corporate misconduct, particularly corporate mismanagement

  8. United States v. O'Hagan

    521 U.S. 642 (1997)   Cited 497 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Commission, in a nearly identical grant of authority, may regulate acts that are "not themselves fraudulent" if the restriction is "reasonably designed to prevent" fraud or deception

  9. Williams v. WMX Technologies, Inc.

    112 F.3d 175 (5th Cir. 1997)   Cited 1,051 times
    Holding Rule 9(b) requires a plaintiff plead the "who, what, when, where, and how" of the alleged fraud

  10. Benchmark Electronics v. J.M. Huber Corp.

    343 F.3d 719 (5th Cir. 2003)   Cited 843 times
    Holding that the district court plainly erred in treating the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as a motion for summary judgment without allowing discovery, noting that the plaintiff was “deprived of a full and fair opportunity to defend against summary judgment”

  11. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 39,551 times   328 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  12. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,753 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  13. Section 78j - Manipulative and deceptive devices

    15 U.S.C. § 78j   Cited 12,638 times   166 Legal Analyses
    Granting SEC power to establish rules to further statute forbidding manipulative or deceptive devices in connection with purchase or sale of securities

  14. Section 240.10b5-2 - Duties of trust or confidence in misappropriation insider trading cases

    17 C.F.R. § 240.10b5-2   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Preliminary Note to § 240.10b 5-2: This section provides a non-exclusive definition of circumstances in which a person has a duty of trust or confidence for purposes of the "misappropriation" theory of insider trading under Section 10(b) of the Act and Rule 10b-5. The law of insider trading is otherwise defined by judicial opinions construing Rule 10b-5, and Rule 10b5-2 does not modify the scope of insider trading law in any other respect. (a)Scope of Rule. This section shall apply to any violation