United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · 2019-01-17
author: unavailable · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Interpretation-only case: no authored CASE context or instance blocks recorded in this snapshot.
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
But reasonable reliance "is not an element of an SEC enforcement action because Congress designated the SEC as the primary enforcer of the securities laws, and a private plaintiff's 'reliance' does not bear on the determination of whether the securities laws were violated, only whether that private plaintiff may recover damages."
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Conrad — 354 F. Supp. 3d 1330 · United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · 2019 (15usc78j: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
But reasonable reliance "is not an element of an SEC enforcement action because Congress designated the SEC as the primary enforcer of the securities laws, and a private plaintiff's 'reliance' does not bear on the determination of whether the securities laws were violated, only whether that private plaintiff may recover damages."Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_354.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/354/1330-01; Unicode character offsets [20442:20773] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5f427ac3729a54386bbd0fed405c7135bd28e1ad6c12a5491f114da983ce3b09.Private damages additions do not define the core SEC fraud violation Conrad rejects importing a failed private reliance claim into SEC materiality analysis. Dura supplies the separate loss/loss-causation requirements for private damages; no remedy-specific SEC recovery standard is resolved here.