Easwarankudyil v. Hazuda

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that the same three elements of securities fraud were established by a conviction for wire fraud
• denying SEC’s request for disgorgement of salary where “[t]he SEC has not shown a causal relationship between [defendant’s] salary and bonuses and the fraud”
• denying SEC’s request for disgorgement of salary where “[t]he SEC has not shown a causal relationship between [defendant’s] salary and bonuses and the fraud”
• awarding third tier civil penalties for large loss es and the defendant’s central role in fraud with scienter
• denying disgorgement of salary when SEC “d[id] not contend that Chapman would not have received his salary or bonuses for those months” if he did not engage in the fraud
• identical issues in civil enforcement under § 17(a) of the Securities Act and § 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder after criminal conviction for securities fraud

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).