C.F.R. » Title 17 » CHAPTER II—SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION › PART 240—GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 › Subpart A—Rules and Regulations Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5

Employment of manipulative and deceptive devices

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,

(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,

(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or

(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person,

in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. (Sec. 10; 48 Stat. 891; 15 U.S.C. 78j) [13 FR 8183, Dec. 22, 1948, as amended at 16 FR 7928, Aug. 11, 1951]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 878 cases (45 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case: Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995). · cites it 4× “§ 78j(b) and 17 CFR 240.10b-5 (1994). It lacks generality, for it applies only to a few individual instances.”
United States v. Nacchio, 519 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “The defendant proposed a jury instruction based on the theory that if the nondisclosure of information regarding the IRU sales did not render Qwest's public projections affirmatively misleading under Rule 10b-5, that information must not have been material for purposes of…”
Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Bonderman, 96 N.E.3d 191 (N.Y. 2018). “The persuasive logic of these decisions supports our conclusion that section 6.03 empowers the trustee to pursue causes of action to remedy an injury common to all noteholders arising from the failure to pay the PIK note obligations.”
Adrian Freeman v. Laventhol & Horwath, 915 F.2d 193 (6th Cir. 1990). · cites it 4× “Our concern, on this appeal, is limited to appellees' allegations of securities fraud in violation of Sec.”
Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854 (5th Cir. 2003). “Rule 10b-5, promulgated under § 10(b), makes it unlawful “[t]o make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading .”
Stammco, L.L.C. v. United Tel. Co. of Ohio, 2013-Ohio-3019, 994 N.E.2d 408. · cites it 2× “23(B)(3) required plaintiff merely to plead that Amgen’s misrepresentations materially affected the price of Amgen’s stock, or whether plaintiff was required to prove the materiality requirement.”
Henry T. Sanders v. John Nuveen & Co., 554 F.2d 790 (7th Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “§ 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. Negligence is not sufficient.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Fife, 311 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “§ 78j(b) and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5; section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.”
Hecht v. Harris, Upham & Co., 283 F. Supp. 417 (N.D. Cal. 1968). · cites it 4× “§ 78j(b); and, Securities Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 (17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5); the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 ( 7 U.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Lawbaugh, 359 F. Supp. 2d 418 (D. Md. 2005). “§ 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5, by using any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security: i.”
Stern v. Am. Bankshares Corp., 429 F. Supp. 818 (E.D. Wis. 1977). · cites it 3× “§§ 78j(b), 78t(a), 78cc(b)) and Rule 10(b)-5 (17 CFR 240.10b-5) and sections 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 ( 15 U.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Edward E. Holschuh, 694 F.2d 130 (7th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. 22 . See section 10(b) of the 1934 Act (15 U.”
Show all 878 citing cases →
17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(1951): 1 case
In re OSG Sec. Litig., 12 F. Supp. 3d 622 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(1974): 1 case
Arpet, Ltd. v. Homans, 390 F. Supp. 908 (W.D. Pa. 1975).
17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(2): 3 cases
Howard H. Mason v. Bradley Unkeless, 618 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1980).
Zucker v. Sasaki, 963 F. Supp. 301 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
Lowenbraun v. Rothschild, 685 F. Supp. 336 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(3): 2 cases
Hunt v. Robinson, 852 F.2d 786 (4th Cir. 1988).
Hunt v. Robinson, 852 F.2d 786 (4th Cir. 1988).
17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a): 6 cases
United States v. Thomas A. Faulhaber, 929 F.2d 16 (1st Cir. 1991).
In re Cannavest Corp. Sec. Litig., 307 F. Supp. 3d 222 (S.D. Ill. 2018).
Wiley v. Hughes Capital Corp., 746 F. Supp. 1264 (D.N.J. 1990).
Pittsburgh Terminal Corp. v. The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., W. James Price, Alonzo G. Decker, Jr., James Parker Nolan, Frederick Deane, Jr., James L. O'keefe, Gregory S. Devine, Fay A. Le Favre, Nicholas T. Camicia, Dr. Milton S. Eisenhower, Steven Muller, John K. Stevenson, Hays T. Watkins, Howard E. Simpson & Cyrus S. Eaton, All Directors or Former Directors of the Baltimore & Ohio R.R., the Chesapeake & Ohio R.R. &/or the Chessie Sys., the Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. & Chessie Sys., Inc. Monroe Guttmann, Loretta Guttmann, Janet Rees & Evelyn Bittner v. The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., W. James Price, Alonzo G. Decker, Jr., James Parker Nolan, Frederick Deane, Jr., James L. O'keefe, Gregory S. Devine, Fay A. Le Fevre, Nicholas T. Camicia, Dr. Milton S. Eisenhower, Steven Muller, John K. Stevenson, Hays T. Watkins, Howard E. Simpson & Cyrus S. Eaton, All Directors or Former Directors of the Baltimore & Ohio R.R., the Chesapeake & Ohio R.R. &/or the Chessie Sys., the Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. & Chessie Sys., Inc, 680 F.2d 933 (3d Cir. 1982).
United States v. Cannistraro, 734 F. Supp. 1110 (D.N.J. 1990).
17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b): 26 cases
United States v. Nacchio, 519 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2008). “The defendant proposed a jury instruction based on the theory that if the nondisclosure of information regarding the IRU sales did not render Qwest's public projections affirmatively misleading under Rule 10b-5, that information must not have been material for purposes of…”
Robert Sawyer v. Robert H. Butler, Sr., 881 F.2d 1273 (5th Cir. 1989).
United States v. Schiff, 538 F. Supp. 2d 818 (D.N.J. 2008).
Freudenberg v. E Trade Fin. Corp., 712 F. Supp. 2d 171 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Sec. Litig., 765 F. Supp. 2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(c): 3 cases
Francis Fleming, Jr. v. Charles Schwab Corp., 878 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2017).
Yan Guo v. Kyani, Inc., 311 F. Supp. 3d 1130 (C.D. Cal. 2018).
Scholes v. Stone, McGuire & Benjamin, 786 F. Supp. 1385 (N.D. Ill. 1992).
17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(l): 1 case
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Bauer, 723 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2013).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.