D.C. Circuit· 8/18/2000

Graham v. Securities & Exchange Commission

Citations

222 F.3d 994
343 U.S. App. D.C. 57
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 20938
2000 WL 1053867

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that fraud perpetrated on brokers who executed securities transactions, rather than the ac- tual investors, was in connection with the transactions
concluding that estoppel was not applicable where SEC did not make “any representations at all” to petitioners
noting as significant the absence of red flags in assessing one’s liability as an aider and abettor
noting as significant the absence of red flags in assessing one’s liability as an aider and abetter
consistent with circuit precedent prior to Section 104’s enactment, knowledge or recklessness is sufficient to satisfy scienter requirement for aiding and abetting liability
“Of course, even if the NASD had done something to bind itself, that would not have bound the SEC.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ginsburg, Tatel, Garland

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

63 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

37 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.