United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Stoker
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.
The Complaint in this securities fraud action alleges that defendant Brian Stoker Negligently violated Section 17(a)(2) & (3) of theN Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. v- 77q(a)(2) & (3), in connection with his role in structuring and marketing a largely synthetic collateralized debt obligation (“CDO”) called Class V Funding III (“Class V III”).1 On December 16, 2011, Stoker moved to dismiss all counts of the Complaint on three grounds: first, that the claim under Section 17(a)(2) fails to allege that Stoker personally obtained money or property by means…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Aaron v. Securities & Exchange CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. TamboneCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2010
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- United States v. Aurelio Cano-FloresCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2015
- United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. WeyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2017
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. GoldstoneDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 2013
- U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission v. SyronDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2013
- United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. MuddDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.