15 U.S.C. § 78a
Short title
This chapter may be cited as the “Securities Exchange Act of 1934.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,365
cases (135 in the last 5 years), 1935–2026 · leading case: Liu v. SEC. & Exch. Comm'n
Liu v. SEC. & Exch. Comm'n (2020)
“SEC Opinion of the Court as amended, 15 U. S. C. §78a et seq., and to punish securi- ties fraud through administrative and civil proceedings.”
Ryan Rowinski, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., Ryan Rowinski (2005)
“See 15 U.S.C. § 78a (stating SLUSA aims “to prevent certain State private securities class action lawsuits alleging fraud from *299 being used to frustrate the objectives of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995”).”
Karim Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. (2018)
“OPINION TASHIMA, Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the dismissal by the district court of an action under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78a et seq. We must decide whether the district court erred in dismissing the action.”
Basic Inc. v. Levinson (1988)
“881 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78a et seq., and the Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR § 240 .”
Securities Industry Ass'n v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (1984)
“881 , 15 U. S. C. § 78a et seq.; and the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, 49 Stat.”
Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A. (1994)
“881 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78a et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp.”
Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003)
“) The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. § 78a et seq.) "was designed to protect investors against manipulation of stock prices" and to that end established extensive disclosure requirements.”
Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Bonderman (2018)
“The trustee in Regions brought a suit for fraudulent inducement-specifically, for misrepresentations and nondisclosures in the offering memorandum about the actual risks of the underlying technology in which the bondholders invested, and, as a consequence, the risk of entering…”
People v. Salas (2006)
“[6] Next, Simon asserted that section 25401 was based on section 12(2) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. § 78a et seq.), which contains an express requirement of guilty knowledge, and that section 25540 was modeled after section 32(a) of that act, which…”
Tafflin v. Levitt (1990)
“881 , 15 U. S. C. § 78a et seq., and RICO. The District Court granted respondents' motions to dismiss, concluding that petitioners had failed to state a claim under the Exchange Act and that, because state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over civil RICO claims, federal…”
China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh (2018)
“881 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. §78a et seq. In short, the successive complaints each make materially identical allegations that China Agritech en- gaged in fraud and misleading business practices, causing the company’s stock price to plummet when several re- ports brought the…”
Tongue v. Sanofi (2016)
“…Plaintiffs’ allegations are predicated on §§ 10(b), 18, and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,15 U.S.C. §§ 78a et *203 seq. (the “Exchange Act”); §§ 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of' 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77a et seq. (the “Securities Act”); and state blue…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 78a(a) — 1 case
New York City Employees' Retirement System v. Ebbers (In Re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation) (2003)
— 15 U.S.C. § 78a(b) — 3 cases
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.