15 U.S.C. § 785
Foreign ownership; comprehensive review; sources of information; report to Congress; monitoring activity
The Administrator shall conduct a comprehensive review of foreign ownership of, influence on, and control of domestic energy sources and supplies. Such review shall draw upon existing information, where available, and any independent investigation necessary by the Administration. The Administrator shall, on or before the expiration of the one hundred and eighty day period following the effective date of this chapter, report to the Congress in sufficient detail so as to apprise the Congress as to the extent and forms of such foreign ownership of, influence on, and control of domestic energy sources and supplies, and shall thereafter continue to monitor such ownership, influence and control.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1971–2013 · leading case: TAGC Mgmt., LLC v. Lehman, Lee & Xu Ltd., 536 F. App'x 45 (2d Cir. 2013).
TAGC Mgmt., LLC v. Lehman, Lee & Xu Ltd., 536 F. App'x 45 (2d Cir. 2013). “*47 § 1962(c), (d); securities fraud, see 15 U.S.C. § 785 (b), 17 C.F.R. § 240 . 10b-5; and false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, see 15 U.”
Hudson v. Capital Mgmt. Int'l, Inc., 565 F. Supp. 615 (N.D. Cal. 1983). “The opinion is organized as follows: Part I, failure to allege transactional nexus, substantial assistance and actual knowledge of the fraud as to § 10(b) of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 785 (b); Part II, lack of specific allegations' as to certain individuals; Part III, absence of…”
Walter J. Cobb, on Behalf of Themselves & All Others Similarly Situated v. Jerry Lewis, 488 F.2d 41 (5th Cir. 1974). “§ 77e (1970) by Network’s sale of unregistered securities (Count III); common law fraud and misrepresentation (Count IV); violations of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 785 (b) (1970), and of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rule 10b-5, 17 C.”
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 91,612 R.J. Wolf v. Banco Nacional De Mexico, S.A., A/K/A Banamex, 739 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1984). “After the packing company failed and the bank prepared to claim the certificate of deposit, the holders sued, alleging, inter alia, that the bank had violated the anti-fraud provisions of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 785 (b). On appeal from the Third Circuit, the Court held that…”
Panfil v. ACC CORP., 768 F. Supp. 54 (W.D.N.Y. 1991). “RICO Plaintiff alleges that defendants are liable under sections 1962(c) and 1962(d) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).”
Gelfer v. Pegasystems, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D. Mass. 2000). “, Alan Trefler, and Ira-Vishner alleging securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 785 (b), 78(t), and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.”
Barr v. Matria Healthcare, Inc., 324 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (N.D. Ga. 2004). “e” inventory and supply process in the Facet [Technologies] Division; (3) problems affecting margins in, and prospects for, the Women’s Health Division; and (4) violations of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) by failing to reserve for the loss to which Defendants…”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. CR Intrinsic Investors, LLC, 939 F. Supp. 2d 431 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “On November 20, 2012, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) brought this action against defendants CR Intrinsic Investors, LLC (“CR Intrinsic”)/Mathew Martoma (“Martoma”), and Sidney Gilman (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging violations of § 10(b) of…”
Weinberger v. New York Stock Exch., 335 F. Supp. 139 (S.D.N.Y. 1971). “” The second count charged the Exchange with a violation of Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 785 (b)) and Rule 10b-5 in that the Exchange wilfully omitted to state material facts and stated untrue material facts in connection with the sale to plaintiff of a limited…”
Weisman v. Darneille, 89 F.R.D. 47 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). “Background Samuel Weisman (“Weisman”) commenced this suit as a class action on May 2, 1977, by filing a complaint that sought damages for the defendants’ alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ( 15 U.S.C. §§ 785 (b), 78m(d)), Rule…”
Gold v. Ford Motor Co., 852 F. Supp. 2d 535 (D. Del. 2012). “19) The Amended Complaint asserts four separate counts against Ford and the Trust, alleging that they committed securities fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Section 10(b)”), 15 U.”
Glazer v. AA Premier Realty, Ltd., 294 F. Supp. 2d 296 (E.D.N.Y 2003). “49 on the grounds of (1) fraud in the purchase and sale of securities in violation of the Securities Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 785 (b); (2) breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) other misrepresentations of material facts.”
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.