United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019-07-25
15usc78j: author: Flash3 · QA: PASS (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: comparator; posture: civil CFTC enforcement action; dismissal of fraud claims under Commodity Exchange Act § 6(c)(1) reversed; Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act cited as the statutory model whose fraud-only scope was incorporated into the CEA; result: not-decided; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) is cited as a statutory comparator and model for CEA § 6(c)(1) (7 U.S.C. § 9(1)). No element of § 10(b) is applied to the defendants' conduct directly; holding is not-reached under role comparator.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 12
| Case | Statutory commerce, mails, or exchange facility | Section 78j(b) rulemaking hook | Materially false statement or misleading half-truth | Importance to a reasonable investor | Intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud | Connection with a covered securities or swap transaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Monex Credit Co. — 931 F.3d 966 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 (15usc78j: author: Flash3 · QA: PASS (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 12
| Case | Private plaintiff's purchaser or seller status | Private investor transaction causation | Actual economic loss in private damages action | Causal connection between fraud and economic loss | Fraudulent scheme or deceptive course of business | Additional criminal mental-state requirement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Monex Credit Co. — 931 F.3d 966 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 (15usc78j: author: Flash3 · QA: PASS (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: comparator/merits | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Monex Credit Co. — 931 F.3d 966 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — not reached (15usc78j: author: Flash3 · QA: PASS (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Fraudulent scheme or deceptive course of business | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits count: Commodity Exchange Act § 6(c)(1) enforcement claim; subject: count=Commodity Exchange Act § 6(c)(1) enforcement claim Ninth Circuit holds that because CEA § 6(c)(1) copied § 10(b)'s language prohibiting deceptive devices or contrivances, it adopted judicial interpretations of § 10(b) that reach fraud alone without requiring market manipulation. No claim under § 10(b) itself is decided. | borrowing-statute/anti-fraud-prohibition | This CEA provision is a mirror image of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, which the Supreme Court has interpreted as a "catch-all clause to prevent fraudulent practices," Chiarella v. United States , 445 U.S. 222, 226, 100 S.Ct. 1108, 63 L.Ed.2d 348 (1980), that authorizes fraud-only claims, see SEC v. Zandford , 535 U.S. 813, 822-25, 122 S.Ct. 1899, 153 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0966-01; Unicode character offsets [24978:25358] (end exclusive); SHA-256 44f80f8225d348de336b1383e089b3c02b15f087e4a3c4f0bcf7ffadb539b969.We presume that by copying § 10(b)'s language and pasting it in the CEA, Congress adopted § 10(b)'s judicial interpretations as well.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0966-01; Unicode character offsets [25359:25492] (end exclusive); SHA-256 44f80f8225d348de336b1383e089b3c02b15f087e4a3c4f0bcf7ffadb539b969. |