§Why CasetextPricing

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Goldman Sachs & Co. et al

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 342 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Jury Argument that Swap Agreement was not a "Security-Based Swap Agreement".. Document

20 Cited authorities

  1. S.E.C. v. Howey Co.

    328 U.S. 293 (1946)   Cited 1,495 times   369 Legal Analyses
    Holding that agreements whereby investors took part in a citrus venture were "securities" under the Act

  2. S. E. C. v. Edwards

    540 U.S. 389 (2004)   Cited 131 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an investment contract with a fixed return can still be security

  3. U.S. v. Leonard

    529 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2008)   Cited 71 times
    Holding that the district court erred by failing to determine and deduct the actual value of securities received by fraud victims

  4. KMW International v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

    606 F.2d 10 (2d Cir. 1979)   Cited 93 times
    Noting authority for enjoining payment under a letter of credit "when the documentation presented is fraudulent or there is `fraud in the transaction.'"

  5. CFIP Master Fund, Ltd. v. Citibank, N.A.

    738 F. Supp. 2d 450 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that plaintiff could not sue as third-party beneficiary where contract expressly stated that "'[n]o person other than the Parties [to the agreement] shall have any right to enforce any provision of this [t]ransaction.'"

  6. McNabb v. S.E.C

    298 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that, although the third factor supported neither side's position, the notes in question nevertheless constituted securities

  7. Stoiber v. S.E.C

    161 F.3d 745 (D.C. Cir. 1998)   Cited 35 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that information contained in “reaffirmation statements” signed by customers showed they knew most of the money would be used for commodities trading, which clearly fell under Reves 's “financing substantial investments” language

  8. United States v. Austin

    462 F.2d 724 (10th Cir. 1972)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that letter of commitment was an "evidence of indebtedness"

  9. Pryor v. Connolly

    460 F. Supp. 2d 530 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)   Cited 2 times

    No. 06 Civ. 1722 (DC). November 8, 2006. Arthur Pryor, Beacon, NY, Petitioner, Pro Se. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx County, by Karen Swiger, David S. Weisel, Assistant District Attorneys, Bronx, NY, Attorneys for Respondent. OPINION CHIN, District Judge. Pro se petitioner Arthur Pryor petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted, following a jury trial in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, of robbery

  10. Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

    Fed. R. Evid. 201   Cited 28,327 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."

  11. Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

    Fed. R. Evid. 403   Cited 22,545 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks

  12. Section 78j - Manipulative and deceptive devices

    15 U.S.C. § 78j   Cited 12,510 times   165 Legal Analyses
    Granting SEC power to establish rules to further statute forbidding manipulative or deceptive devices in connection with purchase or sale of securities

  13. Section 77q - Fraudulent interstate transactions

    15 U.S.C. § 77q   Cited 3,304 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the use of "any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud" in connection with the offer or sale of any security

  14. Section 78c - Definitions and application

    15 U.S.C. § 78c   Cited 1,666 times   87 Legal Analyses
    Exempting certain "note" with maturities of less than nine months from the definition of "security" under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

  15. Section 77b - Definitions; promotion of efficiency, competition, and capital formation

    15 U.S.C. § 77b   Cited 1,404 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Instructing the SEC to consider, "in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation"

  16. Section 1a - Definitions

    7 U.S.C. § 1a   Cited 323 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Defining "excluded commodity" under Commodity Exchange Act

  17. Section 3101 - Definitions

    12 U.S.C. § 3101   Cited 37 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Defining "Federal branch" as "a branch of a foreign bank established and operating under [ 12 U.S.C. § 3102]"

  18. Section 77b-1 - Swap agreements

    15 U.S.C. § 77b-1   Cited 3 times

    (a) [Reserved] (b) Security-based swap agreements (1) The definition of "security" in section 77b(a)(1) of this title does not include any security-based swap agreement (as defined in section 78c(a)(78) of this title). (2) The Commission is prohibited from registering, or requiring, recommending, or suggesting, the registration under this subchapter of any security-based swap agreement (as defined in section 78c(a)(78) of this title). If the Commission becomes aware that a registrant has filed a

  19. Section 78c-1 - Swap agreements

    15 U.S.C. § 78c-1   Cited 3 times

    (a) [Reserved] (b) Security-based swap agreements (1) The definition of "security" in section 78c(a)(10) of this title does not include any security-based swap agreement. (2) The Commission is prohibited from registering, or requiring, recommending, or suggesting, the registration under this chapter of any security-based swap agreement. If the Commission becomes aware that a registrant has filed a registration application with respect to such a swap agreement, the Commission shall promptly so notify

  20. Section 240.10b-5 - Employment of manipulative and deceptive devices

    17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5   Cited 9,201 times   134 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any person who "make any untrue statement of material fact"