Search for: "Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission" Results 21 - 40 of 60
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Nov 2018, 10:47 am by Ronald Mann
Among other things, Exchange Act Section 10, Securities Act Section 17, and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Rule 10b-5 subject those statements to sanction either by the SEC or by private parties. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 5:50 am
Securities and Exchange Commission (Docket No. 17-1077), a case that considers the potential liability for a false statement that is not “made” by a person under the now-familiar standard articulated in the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 12:17 pm by Doug Cornelius
Can the Securities and Exchange Commission penalize an investment banker even though he did not “make” false statements? [read post]
29 Jun 2021, 2:54 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Securities and Exchange Commission, 139 S.Ct. 1094 (2019) (“Lorenzo”) to revive the plaintiff’s “tacked on” scheme liability claims. [read post]
28 Mar 2019, 11:25 am by Kish Law
 “Securities fraud” is when some person involved in the securities field engages in conduct prohibited by that the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”)  or Congress. [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 9:01 pm by Gary Gensler
The following year, they passed the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
As discussed in our 2022 Mid-Year Securities Litigation Update, a number of courts have grappled with the effects of Lorenzo. [read post]
24 Jan 2020, 1:00 am by Kevin LaCroix
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. [read post]
3 Dec 2018, 10:30 am by Mark Walsh
Securities and Exchange Commission, who is seated in the front row of the Supreme Court Bar section usually filled by those to be sworn in to the bar. [read post]
4 Aug 2023, 11:04 am by Unknown
Although Rule 10b-5 does make it unlawful to make false statements or omissions, the rule cannot expand liability for conduct that is not prohibited by the enabling statute.Lemelson characterizes this case as the flip side of Lorenzo v. [read post]