363 F. Supp. 2d 708 - Securities & Exchange Commission v. Lucent Technologies Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 7 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Hishon v. King & Spalding · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K · Aaron v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Miree v. County Georgia Phillips
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To establish a violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, the SEC must plead facts demonstrating that the defendant: (1) made a misrepresentation, or an omission (where there was a duty to speak), or other fraudulent device; (2) that was material in the case of a misrepresentation or omission; (3) in connection with the purchase or sale of a security; (4) where the defendant acted with scienter; and (5) the involvement of interstate commerce, the mails or a national securities exchange. SEC v. Adoni, 60 F.Supp.2d 401, 405 (D.N.J.1999). Unlike a private litigant, however, the SEC need not prove either reliance or damages. GFL Advantage Fund, Ltd. v. Colkitt, 272 F.3d 189 , 206 n. 6 (3d Cir.2001); United States v. Haddy, 134 F.3d 542, 549 (3d Cir.1998).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Count 1: Primary violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against all defendants and aiding and abetting violations against the same provisions against all defendants; Count 3: Aiding and abetting violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act, Rules 12b-20, 13a-ll and 13a-13 against all defendants; Count 4: Aiding and abetting violations of Section 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act against all defendants; Count 5: Violation of Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13b2-1 against all defendants Count 6: Violation of Rule 13b2-2 promulgated under the Exchange Act against Aversano.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.