cases/15usc78j/VARIANTS.md

Source: cases/15usc78j/VARIANTS.md
Exact source text

# 15usc78j -- variant catalogue (GENERATED by tools/casedsl.py variants; do not edit)

10 cases, 23 blocks, 98 verbatim quotes. **17 instances** (statute applied to the case's own facts, decided on the merits by this court); 0 applied-but-not-reached; 6 other rulings (comparator / rule-announced / background citations, or procedural / hypothetical / alternative / dissent / lower-court scope) listed separately at the end and NOT counted in the catalogue.

Citation role per case: applied 8, rule-announced 2.

Holding codes: S = satisfied, N = not-satisfied, - = not-reached. Pointer = `file.case` @first-quote-offset.

## Coverage

| element | cases | S | N | - | genera | variants |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| economic-loss | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| loss-causation | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| materiality | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| reliance | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| scheme | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| scienter | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 5 |
| statement | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 |

## element `economic-loss`

- **purchase-inflation/** -- 1 (S 0 / N 1 / - 0)
  - `purchase-inflation/spray-device`
    - N [pleaded] `us-544-336-dura-v-broudo.case` @2000 -- Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo (2005) -- count=spray-device claim

## element `loss-causation`

- **purchase-inflation/** -- 1 (S 0 / N 1 / - 0)
  - `purchase-inflation/no-loss-link`
    - N [pleaded] `us-544-336-dura-v-broudo.case` @1710 -- Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo (2005) -- count=spray-device claim

## element `materiality`

- **merger-negotiations/** -- 2 (S 2 / N 0 / - 0)
  - `merger-negotiations/confidential-urgency`
    - S [proved] `f3d-362-1292-sec-v-ginsburg.case` @24611 -- United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Ginsburg (2004) -- count=Katz Media information
  - `merger-negotiations/specific-price-and-executive-talks`
    - S [proved] `f3d-362-1292-sec-v-ginsburg.case` @23576 -- United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Ginsburg (2004) -- count=EZ Communications information
- **conflicted-compensation/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
  - `conflicted-compensation/eb5-commission-rebates`
    - S [law] `f3d-935-721-sec-v-hui-feng.case` @3455 -- U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Hui Feng (2019) -- party=Hui Feng; theory=client commission disclosures

## element `reliance`

- **direct/** -- 1 (S 0 / N 1 / - 0)
  - `direct/unspecified-investor-exposure`
    - N [pleaded] `f3d-927-177-xia-bi-v-mcauliffe.case` @253 -- Xia Bi v. McAuliffe (2019) -- party=27 Chinese investors; count=federal securities fraud
- **secondary-actor/** -- 1 (S 0 / N 1 / - 0)
  - `secondary-actor/undisclosed-roundtrip-transactions`
    - N [pleaded] `us-552-148-stoneridge-v-scientific-atlanta.case` @2682 -- Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. (2008) -- party=Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola

## element `scheme`

- **commission-diversion/** -- 2 (S 2 / N 0 / - 0)
  - `commission-diversion/concealed-source-of-client-rebate`
    - S [law] `f3d-935-721-sec-v-hui-feng.case` @8366 -- U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Hui Feng (2019) -- party=Hui Feng; count=fraud against clients
  - `commission-diversion/foreign-nominee-recruiters`
    - S [law] `f3d-935-721-sec-v-hui-feng.case` @4809 -- U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Hui Feng (2019) -- party=Hui Feng; count=fraud against regional centers
- **conflict-concealment/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
  - `conflict-concealment/bond-routing-and-firm-misstatements`
    - S [proved] `f3d-933-1248-malouf-v-sec.case` @1059 -- Malouf v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n (2019) -- party=Dennis Malouf; theory=Rule 10b-5(a) and (c)

## element `scienter`

- **conflict-concealment/** -- 2 (S 2 / N 0 / - 0)
  - `conflict-concealment/admitted-business-choice`
    - S [law] `f3d-935-721-sec-v-hui-feng.case` @35492 -- U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Hui Feng (2019) -- party=Hui Feng
  - `conflict-concealment/knowing-delay-and-resisted-disclosure`
    - S [proved] `f3d-933-1248-malouf-v-sec.case` @22043 -- Malouf v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n (2019) -- party=Dennis Malouf
- **disclosure-context/** -- 2 (S 0 / N 2 / - 0)
  - `disclosure-context/drug-safety-research`
    - N [pleaded] `f3d-928-151-metzler-v-kingsley.case` @17665 -- Metzler Asset Mgmt. GMBH v. Kingsley (2019) -- party=individual executives; count=safety-profile statements
  - `disclosure-context/usage-rates-and-management-metrics`
    - N [pleaded] `f3d-928-151-metzler-v-kingsley.case` @22023 -- Metzler Asset Mgmt. GMBH v. Kingsley (2019) -- party=Stuart Kingsley; count=usage-rate statements
- **circumstantial-tipping/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
  - `circumstantial-tipping/calls-followed-by-family-trades`
    - S [proved] `f3d-362-1292-sec-v-ginsburg.case` @2536 -- United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Ginsburg (2004) -- party=Scott Ginsburg; theory=communication and knowing use of inside information

## element `statement`

- **existing-fact/** -- 1 (S 1 / N 0 / - 0)
  - `existing-fact/vehicle-sales-and-committed-purchaser`
    - S [pleaded] `f3d-927-177-xia-bi-v-mcauliffe.case` @3945 -- Xia Bi v. McAuliffe (2019) -- party=McAuliffe and Rodham; count=federal securities fraud
- **statement-maker/** -- 1 (S 0 / N 1 / - 0)
  - `statement-maker/independent-fund-adviser`
    - N [pleaded] `us-564-135-janus-v-first-derivative.case` @590 -- Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders (2011) -- party=Janus Capital Management LLC; theory=Rule 10b-5(b) ultimate authority

## Other rulings (not instances; excluded from the counts above)

| role | scope | block | holding | variant | case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| applied | alternative | element reliance | not-satisfied [pleaded] | `direct/unread-offering-documents` | `f3d-927-177-xia-bi-v-mcauliffe.case` -- party=27 Chinese investors; theory=even assuming exposure was pleaded |
| rule-announced | merits | element scheme | not-reached | `deceptive-conduct/backdated-supply-contracts` | `us-552-148-stoneridge-v-scientific-atlanta.case` |
| rule-announced | merits | element willfulness | not-reached | `criminal-instruction/burden-and-good-faith` | `f3d-929-63-united-states-v-afriyie.case` -- count=Count One securities fraud |
| rule-announced | procedural | element materiality | not-reached | `certification/materiality-common-question` | `us-568-455-amgen-v-connecticut-retirement.case` |
| rule-announced | procedural | element reliance | not-reached | `certification/truth-on-market-rebuttal` | `us-568-455-amgen-v-connecticut-retirement.case` -- theory=materiality attack on fraud-on-market presumption |
| rule-announced | procedural | element scheme | not-reached | `insider-misappropriation/employment-confidentiality` | `f3d-929-63-united-states-v-afriyie.case` -- count=Count One securities fraud |

## Fact-line polarity

54 fact lines: cuts-against 18, supports 36; 6 of them flagged `absent` (the court notes what is NOT alleged or proved).