Gebhart v. Securities & Exchange Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• reviewing an agency’s factual finding to determine if it was supported by 9 “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 10 conclusion”
• identifying elements to prove a section 10(b) claim, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), or Rule 10b-5 claim, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b- 5, and noting that the SEC need not prove loss causation or economic loss
• “the objective unreasonableness of a defendant’s conduct may give rise to an inference of scienter”
• a breach of duty of care resulting in the dissemination of misinformation does not necessarily implicate knowledge of the falsity of the representation, and does not satisfy the scienter element
• “Our focus here is on the elements that the SEC must establish. The fourth 28 1 Argus stock. (Doc. No. 219, Knight Decl. ¶ 3.) In order to execute this scheme, 2 Defendants Knight, Sripetch, and Wexler agreed that: (1
• applying same standards in enforcement actions by the Commission

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).