Securities & Exchange Commission v. Pimco Advisors Fund Management LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that defendant's belated disclosure of the existence of a transaction violating its market timing policies could support an inference of recklessness
• rejecting Treadway’s argument that the Complaint fails to allege his full knowledge of the nature of the Canary relationship in sustaining the Section 36(a) claim against him
• “According to the SEC investigations, press reports, allegations in complaints, and expert commentary, many mutual fund companies engaged in huge volumes of undisclosed transactions with Canary and other market timers during the period at issue.”
• “The provisions of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) have been interpreted as substantively indistinguishable from Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, except that Section 206(1) requires proof of fraudulent intent, while Section 206(2) simply requires proof of negligence.”
• describing mutual fund market timing in detail
• applying Rule 9(b) to Section 17(a)(3) claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).