Legal Opinion
United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Mudd
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided August 10, 2012No. 11 Civ. 09202 (PAC)PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION & ORDER
PAUL A. CROTTY, District Judge:
On December 16, 2011, the SEC instituted this action against Daniel Mudd, Enrico Dallavecchia, and Thomas Lund (collectively, the “Defendants”), for misleading investors concerning Federal National Mortgage Association’s (“FNMA”) level of exposure to risky subprime and reduced documentation “Alt-A” loans. The SEC charged: (1) Mudd with violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (Count One); (2) Mudd and Dallavecchia with violating Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act (Count Two); (3) all Defendants with aiding and abetting…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Basic Inc. v. LevinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Ohio Public Employees Retirement System v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2016
- Comprehensive Investment Services, Inc. v. MuddDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. China Northeast Petroleum Holdings Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 2014
- U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission v. SyronDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2013
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. ConstantinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2013
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.