Bob Reves, et al. v. Ernst & Young

The court held that Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act does not impliedly empower private parties to sue for rescission of any contract that allegedly violates the act.

The court held that a showing of pecuniary loss to investors is not required before the Securities and Exchange Commission may obtain a disgorgement award.

The justices ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission violated the Seventh Amendment.

The Court held that pure omissions are not actionable under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b–5(b).

The Court unanimously held that to state a claim under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, a plaintiff must plead and prove that he purchased "such security" that is "traceable to the allegedly defective registration statement".

The court held that defendants bear the burden of persuasion to prove a lack of price impact by a preponderance of the evidence at class certification.

The Court ruled that courts may award the SEC's sought disgorgement for fraudulent activities as equitable relief, but only up to the wrongdoer's net profits and only for victims.· AI-written

The Court held that someone who disseminated false statements to potential investors with intent to defraud could be held liable under Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act, even without having drafted the statements.· AI-written

The Court held the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 did not strip state courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate class actions alleging only 1933 Securities Act violations; nor did it authorize removing such suits from state to federal court.

The Court ruled that "whistleblower" status and associated protections as defined by Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank only apply in cases where the whistleblower has reported malfeasance directly to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The court held that, because SEC disgorgement is a punitive measure rather than a compensatory one, any claim for disgorgement in an SEC enforcement action must be commenced within five years of the date the claim accrued.

The court held that, under the Securities Act of 1933, the issuer of a security is not liable for a statement of opinion simply because the stated opinion ultimately proves incorrect.

In a securities fraud class certification case under the fraud-on-the-market theory, the Court addressed whether markets are economically efficient and presumed that they are.· AI-written

The court held that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act does not preclude civil class actions under state law.

The court held that proof of materiality is not a prerequisite to certification of a securities-fraud class action.

The Court ruled that the statute of limitations for filing civil penalty actions initiates when the offending act is committed or finished.

The court ruled in an 8-0 unanimous opinion that the limitation period was subject to traditional equitable tolling.

The Court held that a service provider cannot be held liable in a private action under SEC Rule 10b-5.

In a securities fraud class action over a drugmaker's failure to disclose adverse event reports lacking statistically significant evidence of causation, the Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit and held the plaintiffs had stated a claim under §10(b) and Rule 10b-5.· AI-written

The court held that the time for a plaintiff to file a federal securities fraud lawsuit begins to run when the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the defendant knew that the defendant's statement was false.

In a dispute where investors claimed their investment advisor's fees were too steep, the Court held that courts may regulate mutual fund advisers' fees under the Investment Company Act of 1940 when the fees are excessive and breach fiduciary duty.· AI-written

In a 5-3 decision authored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that "aiders and abettors" of fraud cannot be held secondarily liable under the private right of action authorized by §10(b) of the Exchange Act.

The Court ruled on the interpretation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995's requirement of scienter in a civil action in apply to Tellabs and Makor Issues & Rights.

The Court held that an inflated purchase price will not by itself constitute or proximately cause the relevant economic loss needed to allege and prove "loss causation."

The Court concluded that a secret understanding to violate an arrangement under the Act still constituted a violation, rejecting an argument that oral contracts were categorically excluded from the provision's coverage.

In an insider trading case, the Court held that a person may be liable under Rule 10(b)-5 for misappropriating confidential information, and that the SEC did not exceed its rulemaking authority in adopting Rule 14e-3(a).· AI-written

In a securities fraud case, the Court held that private civil liability under Rule 10b-5 does not extend to aiders and abettors who do not themselves engage in a manipulative or deceptive practice, so private plaintiffs could not bring such suits.· AI-written

The Court held that investors’ claims under the Securities Act of 1933 can be resolved through arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

In a securities fraud case, the Court articulated the fraud-on-the-market theory as giving rise to a rebuttable presumption of reliance.· AI-written

The Court held that the Federal Reserve's amendment to Regulation Y, which lowered regulatory burdens on well-managed banks did not exceed the Board's statutory authority.

The court held that shares of stock entitling a purchaser to lease an apartment in a co-op are not securities because the shares do not meet the investment contract criteria established in the Howey test.

The Court ruled that only those suffering direct loss from the purchase or sale of stock had standing to sue under federal securities law.

The court held that corporate shareholders have an implied private right of action to bring suit under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for materially false or misleading proxy statements.

By a 7–2 margin the Court held that the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 barring any waiver of rights under that statute took precedence over the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) requirement that arbitration clauses in contracts be given full effect by federal courts.

The Court held that a corporation offering equity stock shares to "key employees" was eligible for the transaction-based exemption from securities registration under Section 4(1) of the Securities Act of 1933.· AI-written

The Court held that the Commerce Clause allows the federal government to dissolve a public utility company that is not serving the local community properly.