Search for: "Scientific-Atlanta, Inc" Results 101 - 120 of 177
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jan 2008, 5:15 am
  The Commission can charge vendors like Motorola and Scientific Atlanta as primary violators. [read post]
3 Jul 2007, 11:18 am
Scientific-Atlanta (06-43) - which examines secondary liability in securities fraud cases - as the Court's main business case in OT07. [read post]
17 Nov 2009, 11:59 am by James Hamilton
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., where the Court held that secondary non-speaking actors said to have participated with a company in a securities fraud scheme were not liable in a private action under Rule 10b-5 Until the Central Bank ruling, every circuit of the Federal Court of Appeals had concluded that a private right of action for securities fraud allowed recovery not only against the person who directly undertook a fraudulent act, the primary violator, but also anyone who… [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 1:02 pm by Luke Green
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 128 S.Ct. 761 (2008) there is no aiding and abetting liability in private actions under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. [read post]
23 Apr 2009, 4:20 am
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., issued in January 2008.[5] Recent events illustrate that the existing laws relating to corporate governance as well as regulatory scheme cannot achieve the goals for which they were created. [read post]
8 May 2020, 6:32 am by Mary Brown
Their location and controller-based systems were integrated into its Aironet products. 2005: Scientific Atlanta was acquired by Cisco. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 2:02 pm by Barry Barnett
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148 (2008), held that aiding and abetting doesn't run afoul of the Securities Exchange Act, at least not in private litigation. [read post]