Cases pin-citing Huddleston · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Huddleston

Cases pin-citing Huddleston

Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston  ·  1983  ·  101 pinpoint citations from 42 cases, 27 distinct passages.

SEC v. Jarkesy  ·  2024-06-27  ·  Supreme Court  ·  pin 459 U.S. at 375
“[T]he antifraud provisions of the securities laws are not coextensive with common-law doctrines of fraud”
SEC v. Jarkesy Revisions: 6/27/24  ·  2024-06-27  ·  Supreme Court  ·  pin 459 U.S. at 375
“[T]he antifraud provisions of the securities laws are not coextensive with common-law doctrines of fraud”
SEC v. Jarkesy Revisions: 6/27/24  ·  2024-06-27  ·  Supreme Court  ·  pin 459 U.S. at 375
“[T]he antifraud provisions of the securities laws are not coextensive with common-law doctrines of fraud”
SEC v. Jarkesy Revisions: 6/27/24  ·  2024-06-27  ·  Supreme Court  ·  pin 459 U.S. at 375
“[T]he antifraud provisions of the securities laws are not coextensive with common-law doctrines of fraud”
SEC v. Jarkesy  ·  2024-06-27  ·  Supreme Court  ·  pin 459 U.S. at 375
“[T]he antifraud provisions of the securities laws are not coextensive with common-law doctrines of fraud”
George Tershakovec v. Ford Motor Company, Inc.  ·  2023-07-07  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 459 U.S. at 375
“If a person who has an ‘affirmative duty under [Rule 10b-5] to disclose’ a material fact” fails to disclose “material facts that reasonably could be expected to influence [a security-holder’s] decision to sell, positive proof of re- liance . . . is not a prerequisite to recovery.”
Kiddie Academy Domestic Franchising, LLC v. Wonder World Learning, LLC  ·  2020-07-27  ·  D. Maryland  ·  pin 459 U.S. at 375
“A pro forma balance sheet is one prepared on the basis of assumptions as to future events.”
Maloney v. Singas  ·  2018-12-14  ·  E.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
"[W]e have required proof by clear and convincing evidence where particularly important individual interests or rights are at stake."
Wadler v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.  ·  2016-12-20  ·  N.D. California  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“Yet we have repeatedly recognized that securities laws combating fraud should be construed ‘not technically and restrictively, but flexibly to effectuate [their] remedial purposes.’ ”
Fixed Income Shares: Series M v. Citibank N.A.  ·  2015-09-08  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“When Congress acted, federal courts had consistently and routinely permitted a plaintiff to proceed under Section 10(b) even where express remedies under Section 11 or other provisions were available.”
Gold v. Ford Motor Co.  ·  2012-04-02  ·  D. Delaware  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“[A] private right of action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act ... has been consistently recognized for more than 35 years. The existence of this implied remedy is simply beyond peradventure.”
Jimmy Ledford v. Shelby Peeples, Jr.  ·  2011-09-23  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“Reliance is a causa sine qua non, a type of ‘but for’ requirement: had the investor known the truth he would not have acted.”
Ledford v. Peeples  ·  2011-09-23  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“Reliance is a causa sine qua non, a type of ‘but for’ requirement: had the investor known the truth he would not have acted.”
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Steffes  ·  2011-08-03  ·  N.D. Illinois  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“Direct evidence of insider trading is, indeed, rare; and the SEC is entitled to prove its case through circumstantial evidence.”
Ning Yu v. State Street Corp.  ·  2011-03-31  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“Although limited in scope, Section 11 places a relatively minimal burden on a plaintiff. In contrast, Section 10(b) is a ‘catchall’ antifraud provision, but it requires a plaintiff to carry a heavier burden to establish a cause of action.”
In Re State Street Bank and Trust Co. Fixed Income  ·  2011-03-31  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
"Although limited in scope, Section 11 places a relatively minimal burden on a plaintiff. In contrast, Section 10(b) is a `catchall' antifraud provision, but it requires a plaintiff to carry a heavier burden to establish a cause of action."
In Re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation  ·  2010-08-27  ·  S.D. New York  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 S. Ct. at 375
“Liability against the issuer of a security is virtually absolute, even for innocent misstatements.”
Ledford v. Peeples  ·  2010-05-06  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“Reliance is a causa sine qua non, a type of ‘but for’ requirement: had the investor known the truth he would not have acted.”
Ledford v. Peeples  ·  2010-05-06  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
"Reliance is a causa sine qua non, a type of `but for' requirement: had the investor known the truth he would not have acted."
Ledford v. Peeples  ·  2009-05-22  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“Reliance is a causa sine qua non, a type of ‘but for’ requirement: had the investor known the truth he would not have acted.”
Ledford v. Peeples  ·  2009-05-22  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
"Reliance is a causa sine qua non, a type of `but for' requirement: had the investor known the truth he would not have acted."
In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation  ·  2008-03-26  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“If a plaintiff purchased a security issued pursuant to a registration statement, he need only show a material misstatement or omission to establish his prima facie case.”
Caiafa v. Sea Containers Ltd.  ·  2007-09-25  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“Section 10(b) is a ‘catchall’ anti-fraud provision ... [wjhile a Section 11 must be based on misstatements or omissions in a registration statement.”
In Re IAC/InterActiveCorp Securities Litigation  ·  2007-03-21  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“If a plaintiff purchased a security issued pursuant to a registration statement, he need only show a material misstatement or omission to establish his prima facie case.”
Freeland v. Iridium World Communications, Ltd.  ·  2006-01-09  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  pin 74 L. Ed. 2d at 548
“If a plaintiff purchased a security issued pursuant to a registration statement, he need only show a material misstatement or omission to establish his prima facie case. Liability against the issuer of a security is virtually absolute, even for innocent misstatements.”
Marrari v. Medical Staffing Network Holdings, Inc.  ·  2005-09-27  ·  S.D. Florida  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“If a plaintiff purchased a security issued pursuant to a registration statement, he need only show a material misstatement or omission to establish his prima facie case.”
In Re Friedman's, Inc. Securities Litigation  ·  2005-09-07  ·  N.D. Georgia  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 548
“If a plaintiff purchased a security issued pursuant to a registration statement, he need only show a material misstatement or omission to establish his prima facie case. Liability against the issuer of a security is virtually absolute, even for innocent misstatements.”
In Re Bellsouth Corporation Securities Litigation  ·  2005-02-08  ·  N.D. Georgia  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 548
“If a plaintiff purchased a security issued pursuant to a registration statement, he need only show a material misstatement or omission to establish his pri-ma facie case. Liability against the issuer of a security is virtually absolute, even for innocent misstatements.”
In Re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Securities Litigation  ·  2005-02-04  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“[A] Section 10(b) plaintiff carries a heavier burden than a Section 11 plaintiff. Most significantly, he must prove that the defendant acted with scien-ter, ie., with intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.”
In Re Royal Ahold N v. Securities & Erisa Litigation  ·  2004-12-21  ·  D. Maryland  ·  pin 74 L. Ed. 2d at 548
“If a plaintiff purchased a security *400 issued pursuant to a registration statement, he need only show a material, misstatement or omission to establish his pri-ma facie case. Liability against the issuer of a security is virtually absolute, even for innocent misstatements.”
In Re Adams Golf, Inc. Securities Litigation  ·  2004-08-25  ·  Third Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“If a plaintiff purchased a security issued pursuant to a registration statement, he need only show a material misstatement or omission to establish his pri-ma facie case.”
In Re Interbank Funding Corp. Securities Litigation  ·  2004-08-09  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“The section was designed to assure compliance with the disclosure provisions of the [Securities] Act by imposing a *95 stringent standard of liability on the parties who play a direct role in a registered offering.”
In Re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation  ·  2003-11-03  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“Liability against the issuer of a security is virtually absolute, even for innocent misstatements.”
Holiday Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Philip Morris, Inc.  ·  2002-07-11  ·  N.D. Georgia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“In a typical civil suit for money damages, plaintiffs must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Holmes v. Baker  ·  2001-08-23  ·  S.D. Florida  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“If a plaintiff purchased a security issued pursuant to a registration statement, he need only show a material misstatement or omission to establish his prima facie case.”
Danis v. USN Communications, Inc.  ·  1999-10-08  ·  N.D. Illinois  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“To warn that the untoward may occur when the event is contingent is prudent; to caution that it is only possible for the unfavorable events to happen when they have already occurred is deceit.”
In Re Number Nine Visual Technology Corp. Securities Litigation  ·  1999-06-01  ·  D. Massachusetts  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“To warn that the untoward may occur when the event is contingent is prudent; to caution that it is only possible for the unfavorable events to happen when they have already occurred is deceit.”
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Musella  ·  1989-08-08  ·  S.D. New York  ·  pin 74 L. Ed. 2d at 548
“proof of scienter required in [securities] fraud cases is often a matter of inference from circumstantial evidence. If anything, the difficulty of proving the defendant’s state of mind supports a lower standard of proof [than by a preponderance of the evidence].”
United States v. Jones  ·  1986-10-08  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“... the antifraud provisions of the securities laws are not coextensive with common-law doctrines of fraud.”
Slomiak v. Bear Stearns & Co.  ·  1984-07-24  ·  S.D. New York  ·  pin 74 L. Ed. 2d at 548
“By 1961, four courts of appeals and several district courts in other circuits had recognized the existence of a private remedy under Section 10(h) and Rule 10b-5 ____ By 1969, the existence of a private cause of action had been recognized by ten of the eleven courts of appeals.”
Zuckerman v. Harnischfeger Corp.  ·  1984-04-26  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 103 L. Ed. 2d at 375
“[A] Section 10(b) plaintiff carries a heavier burden than a Section 11 plaintiff. Most significantly, he must prove that the defendant acted with scienter, i.e., with intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.”
Page 1 of 3   Next →