Securities & Exchange Commission v. Richard L. Goble

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that obey-the-law injunctions often suffer from lack of specificity, but that “an injunction that orders a defendant to comply with a statute may be appropriate” when the enjoined activity remains clear
• recognizing to establish aiding and abetting liability under the securities laws, the SEC must show (1) a primary violation; (2) the aider and abettor had knowledge of the primary violation; and (3
• interpreting the materiality requirement under § 10(b) “to mean an investment decision—not an individual’s choice of broker-dealers”
• interpreting the materiality requirement under § 10(b) “to mean an investment decision—not an individual’s choice of broker-dealers”
• vacating an injunction that “merely cross-reference[d] the relevant statutes and regulations”
• an injunction may “largely” track “statutory or regula- tory language” so long as it specifically describes proscribed con- duct

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).