Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 30-1506 (2026)

Fraudulent conduct — Liability of principals, controlling persons and others. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Fraudulent conduct — Liability of principals, controlling persons and others. 

(1) It is unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, in connection with a commodity contract or commodity option:

(a)  To employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud;
(b)  To make any false report, enter any false record or make any untrue statement of material fact or 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;
(c)  To engage in any transaction, act, practice or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person; or
(d)  To misappropriate or convert the funds, security or property of any other person.
(2)  The act, omission or failure of any person acting for any individual, association, partnership, corporation or trust within the scope of the person’s employment or office shall be deemed the act, omission or failure of the individual, association, partnership, corporation or trust, as well as of the person.
(3)  Every person who directly or indirectly controls another person liable under any provision of this chapter, every partner, officer, or director of such other person, every person occupying a similar status or performing similar functions, every employee of such other person who materially aids in the violation is also liable jointly and severally with and to the same extent as such other person, unless the person who is also liable by virtue of this provision sustains the burden of proof that he did not know, and in exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of the existence of the facts by reason of which the liability is alleged to exist.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1977–1978 · leading case: Great W. United Corp. v. Kidwell, 439 F. Supp. 420 (N.D. Tex. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Great W. United Corp. v. Kidwell, 439 F. Supp. 420 (N.D. Tex. 1977). · cites it 3× “But the court sees a qualitative difference in activities which concern primarily the internal commercial affairs of Idaho and incidentally affect out-of-state interests and the type of affirmative regulation of commercial affairs of non-residents attempted by the takeover act…”
Great W. United Corp. v. Kidwell, 577 F.2d 1256 (5th Cir. 1978). · cites it 2× “As a result, the Williams Act rights of a shareholder tendering during the first ten days of the federal counting period might be diluted.”
Langbein v. Kirkland, 577 F.2d 1296 (5th Cir. 1978). · cites it 3× “Idaho Code § 30-1506 (5). . See Idaho Code §§ 30-1503 , 30-1506(6).”
— Idaho Code § 30-1506(2) — 2 cases
Great W. United Corp. v. Kidwell, 577 F.2d 1256 (5th Cir. 1978). “As a result, the Williams Act rights of a shareholder tendering during the first ten days of the federal counting period might be diluted.”
Langbein v. Kirkland, 577 F.2d 1296 (5th Cir. 1978). “Idaho Code § 30-1506 (5). . See Idaho Code §§ 30-1503 , 30-1506(6).”
— Idaho Code § 30-1506(3) — 2 cases
Great W. United Corp. v. Kidwell, 577 F.2d 1256 (5th Cir. 1978). “As a result, the Williams Act rights of a shareholder tendering during the first ten days of the federal counting period might be diluted.”
Langbein v. Kirkland, 577 F.2d 1296 (5th Cir. 1978). “Idaho Code § 30-1506 (5). . See Idaho Code §§ 30-1503 , 30-1506(6).”
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.