§Why CasetextPricing

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Durgarian et al

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re First MOTION for Summary Judgment

11 Cited authorities

  1. Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.

    552 U.S. 148 (2008)   Cited 1,227 times   80 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the fraud-on-the-market presumption did not apply because business partners' "deceptive acts were not communicated to the public"

  2. U.S. v. Chestman

    947 F.2d 551 (2d Cir. 1991)   Cited 209 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a knowing breach of fiduciary duty may constitute a fraudulent scheme for purposes of the federal mail fraud statutes

  3. S.E.C. v. Wolfson

    539 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2008)   Cited 108 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant's ability to challenge the sufficiency of a complaint had "passed" because he "never raised any objections to the complaint or otherwise sought a more particular statement of the allegations against him until two years after the complaint was filed and months after the parties had moved for summary judgment"

  4. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Rana Research, Inc.

    8 F.3d 1358 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 127 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that curative press releases containing a "grain of truth" did not prevent deception of the market due to previous misrepresentations

  5. S.E.C. v. Tambone

    550 F.3d 106 (1st Cir. 2008)   Cited 59 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "because section 17 applies to both sales and offers to sell securities, the SEC need not base its claim of liability on any completed transaction at all"

  6. S.E.C. v. Durgarian

    477 F. Supp. 2d 342 (D. Mass. 2007)   Cited 23 times
    Finding that complaint with securities fraud claim that included duty to disclose as an element failed to allege sufficiently detailed facts from which a duty to disclose could arise

  7. Langlois v. Abington Hous. Auth.

    234 F. Supp. 2d 33 (D. Mass. 2002)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that Section 3608 confers rights that can be vindicated through Section 1983 against a state actor

  8. Sabel v. Mead Johnson Co.

    737 F. Supp. 135 (D. Mass. 1990)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that a letter from FDA official recommending that a warning be included on its label was admissible under public records exception to the hearsay rule

  9. Cleary v. Perfectune, Inc.

    700 F.2d 774 (1st Cir. 1983)   Cited 39 times
    Affirming summary judgment in favor of defendants where there was no basis for imposing a duty to disclose

  10. Warsofsky v. Sherman

    326 Mass. 290 (Mass. 1950)   Cited 58 times
    Finding that where defendant, a member of the security committee of a cooperative bank, acting solely in his capacity as an official of the bank, was given confidential information by plaintiff, an individual seeking to secure a loan from the bank, and defendant "understood that the information was given to him in confidence as a director and member of the security committee of the cooperative bank, and he received the information in that capacity and solely for the purpose of enabling himself and other officials of the bank to determine whether the security warranted the granting of the loan," the defendant bank officer had "a fiduciary relation toward the plaintiff with reference to the matters disclosed" and could not use the information for his personal gain as against either the plaintiff or the bank

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 339,516 times   162 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit