§Why CasetextPricing

Smith v. Franklin/Templeton Distributors, Inc. et al

Memorandum in Opposition to 50 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

30 Cited authorities

  1. Alexander v. Sandoval

    532 U.S. 275 (2001)   Cited 2,755 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is "beyond dispute" that banning discrimination " ‘on the ground of race’ " "prohibits only intentional discrimination"

  2. Mendiondo v. Centinela

    521 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 2,086 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) do not apply

  3. Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis

    444 U.S. 11 (1979)   Cited 1,348 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

  4. Berckeley Inv. Group, Ltd. v. Colkitt

    455 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2006)   Cited 1,306 times
    Holding that an expert witness is prohibited from rendering a legal opinion because it would usurp the District Court's pivotal role in explaining the law to the jury

  5. Bellikoff v. Eaton Vance

    481 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 265 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Section 36 of the ICA does not provide an implied private right of action

  6. United States v. First City Nat. Bank

    386 U.S. 361 (1967)   Cited 231 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "review de novo" means review requiring "an independent determination of the issues."

  7. Dreiling v. American Exp. Co.

    458 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 142 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reviewing eligibility for Rule 16b-3 exemption to Section 16(b) liability de novo

  8. GFL Advantage Fund, Ltd. v. Colkitt

    272 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2001)   Cited 129 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to prove fraud, the defendant must be "engaged in deceptive or manipulative conduct by injecting inaccurate information into the marketplace or creating a false impression of supply and demand for the security"

  9. Olmsted v. Pruco Life Ins. Co. of New Jersey

    283 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2002)   Cited 91 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding there is no private right of action to enforce ICA §§ 26(f) and 27(f)

  10. Northstar Financial Adv. v. Schwab Invest

    615 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 52 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming dismissal of claims under Sections 1, 33, and 44 of the ICA because the statutes lack rights of private enforcement

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 164,394 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Section 78cc - Validity of contracts

    15 U.S.C. § 78cc   Cited 547 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Providing a contract is void where "the performance of [it] involves the violation of" the Exchange Act or regulations promulgated under its authority

  13. Section 80b-2 - Definitions

    15 U.S.C. § 80b-2   Cited 231 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Defining "foreign private adviser" in terms of the number of "investors in the United States in private funds"

  14. Section 80b-3 - Registration of investment advisers

    15 U.S.C. § 80b-3   Cited 148 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Granting SEC authority to censure, suspend, or bar member of investment adviser or securities dealer following notice and opportunity for hearing

  15. Section 80a-46 - Validity of contracts

    15 U.S.C. § 80a-46   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing a remedy in the event that "a contract described in paragraph has been performed"

  16. Section 270.12b-1 - Distribution of shares by registered open-end management investment company

    17 C.F.R. § 270.12b-1   Cited 37 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) Except as provided in this section, it shall be unlawful for any registered open-end management investment company (other than a company complying with the provisions of section 10(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-10(d) ) ) to act as a distributor of securities of which it is the issuer, except through an underwriter; (2) For purposes of this section, such a company will be deemed to be acting as a distributor of securities of which it is the issuer, other than through an underwriter, if it engages

  17. Section 270.6c-10 - Exemption for certain open-end management investment companies to impose deferred sales loads

    17 C.F.R. § 270.6c-10

    (a) A company and any exempted person shall be exempt from the provisions of sections 2(a)(32), 2(a)(35), and 22(d) of the Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(32) , 80a-2(a)(35) , and 80a-22(d) , respectively] and § 270.22c-1 to the extent necessary to permit a deferred sales load to be imposed on shares issued by the company, Provided, that: (1) The amount of the deferred sales load does not exceed a specified percentage of the net asset value or the offering price at the time of purchase; (2) The terms of