discussed Cited "see" Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (In re Madoff) A "control person” claim under § 20(a) of the Exchange Act requires proof that (1) BLMIS committed a primary violation of the securities laws, (2) Picower had the power to control the business affairs of BLMIS, and (3) and Picower "had the requisite power to directly or indirectly control or influence the specific corporate policy which resulted in primary liability.” Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc., 544 F.3d 1230, 1237 (11th Cir.2008) (quoting Theoharous v. Fong, 256 F.3d 1219 , 1227 (11th Cir.2001)) (quotation marks omitted); accord Brown v. Enstar Grp., Inc., 84 F.3d 393, 396-97 (11th Cir.…

cited Cited "see" Swan Beach Corolla, L.L.C. v. County of Currituck See Edward Valves, Inc. v. Wake County, 343 N.C. 426, 435 , 471 S.E.2d 342, 347 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1112 , 136 L.Ed. 2d 839 (1997); Copper ex rel.

discussed Cited "see" Copper Ex Rel. Copper v. Denlinger (2×) See Edward Valves, Inc. v. Wake County, 343 N.C. 426, 434-35 , 471 S.E.2d 342, 347 (1996) (holding that ž 1983 action based on violation of substantive constitutional rightÔÇöas opposed to procedural due processÔÇönot precluded by failure to exhaust state administrative remedies), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1112 , 117 S.Ct. 952 , 136 L.Ed.2d 839 (1997); Good Hope Hosp., 174 N.C.App. at 272 , 620 S.E.2d at 879 ("Violation of a substantive constitutional right may be the subject of a ž 1983 claim, regardless of whether administrative remedies have been exhausted, because the violation is com…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gilbert v. North Carolina State Bar (2×) Ed. 2d 662 (1986); see also Edward Valves, Inc. v. Wake Cty., 343 N.C. 426, 434 , 471 S.E.2d 342, 347 (1996) (“State remedies are only relevant when a Section 1983 action is brought for a violation of procedural due process.” (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1112 , 136 L.