Employment of manipulative and deceptive devices

CurrencyCurrent through May 31, 2023
Citation 17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
225 cases
  • In re New York City Municipal Securities Litigation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • January 25, 1980
    ...Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act" or the "1934 Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. Eleven separate lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial matters in this litigation.3 In five of the actions, the City is named as a ......
  • Bajjuri v. Raytheon Techs. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • November 18, 2022
    ...605 (9th Cir. 2014) ("Rule 9(b) applies to all elements of a securities fraud action"); see also 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78u-4(b)(1); 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. III. The Court begins with a housekeeping item. In Motion II, Raytheon asks the Court to notice materials attached to Motion I as Exhibit......
  • SS Richmond LLC v. Harrison
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • November 9, 2022
    ...28 U.S.C. § 1658(b) governs the statute of limitations for Plaintiffs' securities fraud claim pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. Section 1658(b) states:a private right of action that involves a claim of fraud, deceit, manipulation, or contrivance in contravention of a......
  • In re Bos. Sci. Corp. Sec. Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • December 20, 2022
    ...caused artificial inflation of Boston Scientific common stock, in violation of Section 10(b), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 (Count I) and in violation of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a) (Count Defendants have moved to dismi......
  • Get Started for Free
62 firm's commentaries
33 books & journal articles
  • Can We Talk Climate? The SEC Disclosure Rule and Compelled Commercial Speech
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 53-12, December 2023
    • December 1, 2023
    ...note 219 and accompanying text. 279. See supra note 220 and accompanying text. 280. See supra note 158 and accompanying text. 281. See 17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5. 282. See supra note 219 and accompanying text. 283. See supra note 162 and accompanying text. 53 ELR 10954 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER ......
  • Unveiling Management's Crystal Ball
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review No. 77-3, April 2017
    • April 1, 2017
    ...information. 32 22. See infra Part V. 23. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78a–78nn (2012). 24. Id. § 78j. 25. 17 C.F.R § 240.10b-5 (2016). 26. See Sargent v. Genesco, Inc., 492 F.2d 750, 760 (5th Cir. 1974) (“The basic intent of . . . [R]ule 10b-5 . . . is to protect investors......
  • § 1.04 Establishing Liability For Unlawful Offers/Sales/ Purchases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Shareholder Litigation in Washington State (WSBA) (2024 Ed.) Chapter 1 Shareholder Suits Under the Washington State Securities Act
    • Invalid date
    ...has often been referred to as the "anti-fraud" provision of the WSSA and has similarities to the language of SEC Rule 10b-5 (17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5), promulgated under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b)), which is directed at securities fraud. But while section......
  • Crypto Assets and Insider Trading Law's Domain
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 105-1, November 2019
    • November 1, 2019
    .... Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-291, § 10(b), 48 Stat. 881, 891 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. § 78(j) (2012)); 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 (commonly known as Rule 10b-5). 93 . See Chiarella v. United States, 445 U.S. 222, 233–35 (1980) (rejecting “a general duty between all ......
  • Get Started for Free