Securities & Exchange Commission v. Lee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that liability is appropriate if the defendant has substantially participated in scheme to mislead investors “even if a material misstatement by another person creates the nexus between the scheme and the securities market”
• stating that, unlike private litigants, the SEC is not required to prove investor reliance, loss causation or damages
• finding statements relating to “present value of the backlog” were not forward-looking but backlog as a predictor of future performance was forward- looking
• “There is no absolute rule barring a private plaintiff from relying on government pleadings and proceedings[.]”
• “In order to state a claim under Sections 17(a) of the Securities Act [and] 10(b) of the Exchange Act ..., the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) must be satisfied.”
• a later case from the same circuit denying a defendant's motion to strike because \[t]here is no absolute rule barring a private plaintiff from relying on government pleadings ... to meet the Rule 9(b) and PSLRA thresholds\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).