45 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,991 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,978 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.
426 U.S. 438 (1976) Cited 2,484 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding that materiality may be resolved at summary judgment "if the established omissions are so obviously important to an investor that reasonable minds cannot differ on the question of materiality"
Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivative Traders
564 U.S. 135 (2011) Cited 568 times 104 Legal Analyses
Holding 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”
Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis
444 U.S. 11 (1979) Cited 1,333 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that Congress did not provide a private right of action for § 80b-6 because the statute expressly provided other means of enforcing compliance with its terms
U.S. v. Zannino
895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) Cited 2,675 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that party's failure to develop argument in appellate brief results in waiver
Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc.
895 F.2d 46 (1st Cir. 1990) Cited 1,573 times
Holding that the party who bears the burden of proof on a particular issue may not rely on the absence of competent evidence on that issue to defeat summary judgment
Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co.
228 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 962 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding on the basis of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 that "numerical benchmark" are informative but not the "exclusive" test
S.E.C. v. Tambone
597 F.3d 436 (1st Cir. 2010) Cited 533 times 7 Legal Analyses
Reinstating portions of withdrawn panel opinion
S.E. C. v. Capital Gains Bureau
375 U.S. 180 (1963) Cited 661 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that an investment adviser who purchases a security for his own account and then recommends the same security to his client without disclosing that ownership violates the antifraud provision of the Act and breaches his fiduciary duty
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 329,861 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 77 - Discrimination against neutral Americans in time of war
15 U.S.C. § 77 Cited 1,801 times 12 Legal Analyses
Granting right of recovery to " any person acquiring such security (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition he knew of such untruth or omission)"
Section 78o - Registration and regulation of brokers and dealers
15 U.S.C. § 78o Cited 989 times 54 Legal Analyses
Requiring broker-dealers to be FINRA members
Section 80b-6 - Prohibited transactions by investment advisers
15 U.S.C. § 80b-6 Cited 648 times 20 Legal Analyses
Making it unlawful for investment advisers to, among other things, defraud their clients or prospective clients

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Tambone

45 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that materiality may be resolved at summary judgment "if the established omissions are so obviously important to an investor that reasonable minds cannot differ on the question of materiality"

Holding 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”

Holding that Congress did not provide a private right of action for § 80b-6 because the statute expressly provided other means of enforcing compliance with its terms

Holding that party's failure to develop argument in appellate brief results in waiver

Holding that the party who bears the burden of proof on a particular issue may not rely on the absence of competent evidence on that issue to defeat summary judgment

Holding on the basis of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 that "numerical benchmark" are informative but not the "exclusive" test

Reinstating portions of withdrawn panel opinion

Holding that an investment adviser who purchases a security for his own account and then recommends the same security to his client without disclosing that ownership violates the antifraud provision of the Act and breaches his fiduciary duty

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Granting right of recovery to " any person acquiring such security (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition he knew of such untruth or omission)"

Requiring broker-dealers to be FINRA members

Making it unlawful for investment advisers to, among other things, defraud their clients or prospective clients