Securities & Exchange Commission v. Sands

How courts have described this case

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

• striking defense where, after completion of discovery, defendants had not produced evidence that the SEC acted unconstitutionally in prosecuting action
• granting summary judgment on Sections 13(D) and 16(a) claims where the defendant-CEO failed to file an amended Schedule 13D and filed an untimely Form 4
• defining prejudice as allegations that cause 22 delay or confusion of the issues
• noting 9 that a defense is insufficient as a matter of law if “there are no questions of fact, . . . any 10 questions of law are clear and not in dispute, and . . . under no set of circumstances could 11 the defense succeed.” (internal quotation marks omitted
• “The increase in ownership by an amount greater than one percent constituted a ‘material’ acquisition and required [defendant] to file with the SEC an amendment to the Schedule 13D.”
• “The grounds for the [Rule 12(f)] 5 motion must appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matter which the 6 court may judicially notice.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).