Commonwealth v. Crosby, C.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the allegation that the defendant was significantly involved in preparing the alleged misstatements was insufficient to state a claim for primary liability under Rule 10b-5
• holding that Janus Investment Fund made statements in prospectuses under Section 10(b) because “[o]nly Janus Investment Fund ... bears the statutory obligation to file the prospectuses with the SEC”
• holding that, where corporate formalities are observed, a corporate entity is not liable under SEC Rule 10b-5 for statements made by a related but legally separate entity
• holding that a mutual fund adviser may not be found liable for a mutual fund's violation of SEC Rule 10b-5, in part because of \the narrow scope that [courts] must give the implied private right of action\
• holding that a mutual fund adviser may not be found liable for a mutual fund’s violation of SEC Rule 10b-5, in part because of “the narrow scope that [courts] must give the implied private right of action”
• holding that Janus Capital Management was not liable as a “maker” of the alleged misstatements because Janus Investment Fund, a separate legal entity, filed the prospectuses and was statutorily obligated to do so

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).