A · Element outline
Labels preserve the recorded AND / OR / EXCEPTION / DEFENSE structure.
Claim structure
Expression key: & = AND; | = OR; ! = exclusion / negation. Parentheses preserve grouping.
15usc78j:private-misstatement
commerce & rule10b5 & statement & materiality & scienter & transaction & purchaser-seller & reliance & economic-loss & loss-causationOrdinary private investor damages action under section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5(b); plaintiff must be a purchaser or seller. The implied private remedy requires reliance, actual economic loss and loss causation. Pleading requirements are separate from merits proof. This does not purport to catalogue every insider-trading, tippee, manipulation, or private scheme-liability variant.
15usc78j:sec-core-fraud
commerce & rule10b5 & (statement | scheme) & materiality & scienter & transactionCore SEC section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 fraud violation, proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Private investor reliance and loss elements are not imported; requirements for a particular injunction, penalty, or disgorgement remedy remain separate.
15usc78j:criminal-core-fraud
commerce & rule10b5 & (statement | scheme) & materiality & scienter & transaction & willfulnessCriminal section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 offense via 15 U.S.C. §78ff(a); each charged element must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Do not substitute civil recklessness/pleading sufficiency for the required criminal mental state. Section 78ff(a)'s rule-knowledge imprisonment proviso is a cross-reference, not encoded as an acquittal defense.
Constraints
Pleading specificity and strong inference govern private complaint sufficiency
Metzler applies PSLRA/Tellabs to dismiss insufficient scienter allegations even assuming statements plausibly misleading. Pleading is not proof at trial.
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.
Law modes, protocols and effects
law
Law kind: substantive
Statute text with element anchors
Overlapping highlights link to the first element; the anchor key links every associated element. All offsets refer to unchanged source text.
§ 78j. Manipulative and deceptive devices
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange—
(1) To effect a short sale, or to use or employ any stop-loss order in connection with the purchase or sale, of any security other than a government security, in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to security futures products.
To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, or any securities-based swap agreement 1 1 So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma. any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
(1) To effect, accept, or facilitate a transaction involving the loan or borrowing of securities in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
(2) Nothing in paragraph (1) may be construed to limit the authority of the appropriate Federal banking agency (as defined in section 1813(q) of title 12 ), the National Credit Union Administration, or any other Federal department or agency having a responsibility under Federal law to prescribe rules or regulations restricting transactions involving the loan or borrowing of securities in order to protect the safety and soundness of a financial institution or to protect the financial system from systemic risk.
Rules promulgated under subsection (b) that prohibit fraud, manipulation, or insider trading (but not rules imposing or specifying reporting or recordkeeping requirements, procedures, or standards as prophylactic measures against fraud, manipulation, or insider trading), and judicial precedents decided under subsection (b) and rules promulgated thereunder that prohibit fraud, manipulation, or insider trading, shall apply to security-based swap agreements to the same extent as they apply to securities. Judicial precedents decided under section 77q(a) of this title and sections 78i, 78 o , 78p, 78t, and 78u–1 of this title, and judicial precedents decided under applicable rules promulgated under such sections, shall apply to security-based swap agreements to the same extent as they apply to securities.
June 6, 1934, ch. 404
48 Stat. 891
Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(5) [title II, § 206(g), title III, § 303(d)]
Dec. 21, 2000
114 Stat. 2763
Pub. L. 111–203, title VII, § 762(d)(3)
July 21, 2010
124 Stat. 1761
Editorial Notes
2010— Pub. L. 111–203, § 762(d)(3)(B) , which directed amendment of the matter following subsection (b) “by striking ‘(as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), in each place that such terms appear’ ”, was executed by striking out “(as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act)” after “security-based swap agreements” in two places in concluding provisions following subsec. (c) to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 111–203, § 929L(2) , substituted “other than a government security” for “registered on a national securities exchange”.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 111–203, § 762(d)(3)(A) , struck out “(as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act),” after “securities-based swap agreement”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 111–203, § 984(a) , which directed amendment of this section by adding subsec. (c) at the end, was executed by adding subsec. (c) after subsec. (b) to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
2000— Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(5) [title III, § 303(d)(2)] , inserted concluding provisions at end.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(5) [title II, § 206(g)] , designated existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2).
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(5) [title III, § 303(d)(1)] , inserted “or any securities-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act),” before “any manipulative or deceptive device”.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Amendment by sections 929L(2) and 984(a) of Pub. L. 111–203 effective 1 day after July 21, 2010 , except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 111–203 , set out as an Effective Date note under section 5301 Title 12, Banks and Banking.
Amendment by section 762(d)(3) of Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the later of 360 days after July 21, 2010 , or, to the extent a provision of subtitle B (§§ 761–774) of title VII of Pub. L. 111–203 requires a rulemaking, not less than 60 days after publication of the final rule or regulation implementing such provision of subtitle B, see section 774 of Pub. L. 111–203 , set out as a note under section 77b of this title .
Pub. L. 111–203, title IX, § 984(b) , July 21, 2010 , 124 Stat. 1933 , provided that: “Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act [ July 21, 2010 ], the Commission shall promulgate rules that are designed to increase the transparency of information available to brokers, dealers, and investors, with respect to the loan or borrowing of securities.”
[For definitions of terms used in section 984(b) of Pub. L. 111–203 , set out above, see section 5301 of Title 12 , Banks and Banking.]
Pub. L. 112–105, § 4(a) , Apr. 4, 2012 , 126 Stat. 292 , provided that: “Members of Congress and employees of Congress are not exempt from the insider trading prohibitions arising under the securities laws, including section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [ 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) ] and Rule 10b–5 thereunder.”
[For definitions of “Member of Congress” and “employee of Congress”, see section 2 of Pub. L. 112–105 , set out as a Definitions note under section 13101 of Title 5 , Government Organization and Employees.]
Pub. L. 112–105, § 9(b)(1) , Apr. 4, 2012 , 126 Stat. 297 , provided that: “Executive branch employees, judicial officers, and judicial employees are not exempt from the insider trading prohibitions arising under the securities laws, including section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [ 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) ] and Rule 10b–5 thereunder.”
[For definitions of “executive branch employees”, “judicial officers”, and “judicial employees”, see section 2 of Pub. L. 112–105 , set out as a Definitions note under section 13101 of Title 5 , Government Organization and Employees.]
Executive Documents
For transfer of functions of Securities and Exchange Commission, with certain exceptions, to Chairman of such Commission, see Reorg. Plan No. 10 of 1950, §§ 1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950 , 15 F.R. 3175, 64 Stat. 1265 , set out under section 78d of this title .All element anchor links
- Statutory commerce, mails, or exchange facility — offsets [104:241]
- Private plaintiff's purchaser or seller status — offsets [672:711]
- Connection with a covered securities or swap transaction — offsets [672:806]
- Exchange-registered or unregistered security — offsets [715:806]
- Connection with a covered securities or swap transaction — offsets [808:846]
- Securities-based swap agreement and statutory extension — offsets [808:846]
- Actual economic loss in private damages action — offsets [907:958]
- Causal connection between fraud and economic loss — offsets [907:958]
- Importance to a reasonable investor — offsets [907:958]
- Private investor transaction causation — offsets [907:958]
- Fraudulent scheme or deceptive course of business — offsets [907:958]
- Intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud — offsets [907:958]
- Materially false statement or misleading half-truth — offsets [907:958]
- Additional criminal mental-state requirement — offsets [907:958]
- Section 78j(b) rulemaking hook — offsets [959:1037]
- Securities-based swap agreement and statutory extension — offsets [1906:2412]
- Securities-based swap agreement and statutory extension — offsets [2413:2717]
Element outline
- AND Statutory commerce, mails, or exchange facility
Shared introductory jurisdictional hook; distinct from the transaction connection and from territorial reach of section 10(b). Territorial limits require separate analysis and are not resolved by incidental use of U.S. communications.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No routes recorded for this element.
- AND Section 78j(b) rulemaking hook
This quote is deliberately the clause in subsection (b), after the deceptive-device language; it is not the repeated clause governing short sales in (a) or securities lending in (c). The IR strips subsection labels; context and offset identify (b). Rule 10b-5 is a separate regulation, not a quotation from statutory text.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No routes recorded for this element.
- AND Materially false statement or misleading half-truth
Under Janus, the Rule 10b-5(b) maker must have ultimate authority over content and whether/how to communicate the statement; drafting assistance alone is insufficient. Rule 10b-5(b) requires a false statement or omission that makes statements actually made misleading. Macquarie (2024) excludes pure omissions even when Item 303 requires disclosure. Do not turn every duty to disclose into a 10b-5(b) private claim; older broad omission phrasing in the cited 2019 opinions is bounded by that holding.
4 merits instance blocks; 4 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) Unclassified route
provisional; provisional (1 case)no definition yet 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:Mun. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Mich. v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc. — 935 F.3d 424 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc78j: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · not counted
Pattern: not recordedfalsity-of-existing-fact
provisional; 2 observed casesWhether a representation of present or past fact was untrue. 2
Satisfied 2; not satisfied 0; excluded context 02 Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Sethi — 910 F.3d 198 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2018 — satisfied · conceded (15usc78j: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: promoter's cold-call script and offering documents claim existing partnerships with major oil companies that never existedXia Bi v. McAuliffe — 927 F.3d 177 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: existing-fact/vehicle-sales-and-committed-purchasermaker
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether the defendant is the "maker" of the statement, i.e. had ultimate authority over it (Janus). 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders — 564 U.S. 135 (2011) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2011 — not · pleaded (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: statement-maker/independent-fund-adviseromission-and-duty-to-disclose
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether silence is actionable: a duty to disclose, or an omission that makes what was said misleading. 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 Fries v. N. Oil & Gas, Inc. — 354 F. Supp. 3d 384 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not · pleaded (15usc78j: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: 10-Q acknowledges an SEC investigation of an affiliate and says the company is not its focus; company's own uncharged involvement not disclosed - AND Importance to a reasonable investor
Materiality is an objective total-mix inquiry, distinct from whether a particular plaintiff actually relied. Hui Feng involved deliberately undisclosed commissions; its investor-focused materiality analysis is used here without importing an unrestricted pure-omission theory after Macquarie.
5 merits instance blocks; 4 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) _derivative
accepted; provisional (1 case)The element stands or falls with another element or claim and receives no independent analysis. 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Sethi — 910 F.3d 198 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2018 — satisfied · conceded (15usc78j: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: materiality affirmed together with falsity, without separate analysis_procedural
accepted; provisional (1 case)The element is only the occasion for a procedural ruling. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds — 568 U.S. 455 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/procedural · not counted
Pattern: certification/materiality-common-questioncontingent-event
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether information about an uncertain future event such as merger talks is material (probability and magnitude, Basic). 2
Satisfied 2; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Ginsburg — 362 F.3d 1292 (2004) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2004 — satisfied · proved (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: merger-negotiations/specific-price-and-executive-talksUnited States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Ginsburg — 362 F.3d 1292 (2004) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2004 — satisfied · proved (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: merger-negotiations/confidential-urgencytotal-mix-and-cautionary-disclosure
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether a misstatement or omission is immaterial because the truth, or adequate cautionary language, was already in the total mix of information. 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 Fan v. StoneMor Partners LP — 927 F.3d 710 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc78j: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: statements that distributions come from operations; 10-Ks and press releases disclosed the borrowing and equity-proceeds funding cycleundisclosed-conflict
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether an undisclosed conflict of interest or compensation arrangement is material. 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Hui Feng — 935 F.3d 721 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · law (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: conflicted-compensation/eb5-commission-rebates - AND Intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud
Judge-made mental-state requirement; civil circuit formulations include sufficiently severe/extreme recklessness, not ordinary negligence. SEC scienter under Rule 10b-5 must not be diluted by the different negligence standards for Securities Act §17(a)(2)/(3). Strong-inference PSLRA pleading is not an extra merits element.
8 merits instance blocks; 7 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) actual-knowledge
provisional; 3 observed casesWhether the defendant's own knowledge of the truth, or deliberate choice to conceal it, establishes intent. 3
Satisfied 3; not satisfied 0; excluded context 03 Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Sethi — 910 F.3d 198 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2018 — satisfied · conceded (15usc78j: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: promoter knew the touted partnerships did not exist; unsupported claim of reliance on consultantsMalouf v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n — 933 F.3d 1248 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: conflict-concealment/knowing-delay-and-resisted-disclosureU.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Hui Feng — 935 F.3d 721 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · law (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: conflict-concealment/admitted-business-choicecircumstantial-trading
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether intent is inferred from the pattern and timing of communications and trades. 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Ginsburg — 362 F.3d 1292 (2004) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2004 — satisfied · proved (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: circumstantial-tipping/calls-followed-by-family-tradesstrong-inference-pleading
provisional; 5 observed casesWhether the complaint pleads facts giving a strong inference that the speaker knew the statement was false when made (PSLRA, Tellabs). 4
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 4; excluded context 23 Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Flotek Indus., Inc. — 915 F.3d 975 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc78j: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: CEO presents third-party-sourced product data that proves wrong; no allegation he knew, error easy to checkMetzler Asset Mgmt. GMBH v. Kingsley — 928 F.3d 151 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: disclosure-context/drug-safety-researchMetzler Asset Mgmt. GMBH v. Kingsley — 928 F.3d 151 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: disclosure-context/usage-rates-and-management-metricsMun. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Mich. v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc. — 935 F.3d 424 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc78j: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Excluded context examples:
Pattern: executives knew of high inventory (publicly disclosed) but nothing shows they knew of the undisclosed markdown risk; bonus motive out of reachFries v. N. Oil & Gas, Inc. — 354 F. Supp. 3d 384 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not · pleaded (15usc78j: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/alternative · not counted
Pattern: confidential witness places knowledge of the underlying misconduct years before the challenged filings; nothing about state of mind when the filings were madeFan v. StoneMor Partners LP — 927 F.3d 710 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc78j: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/alternative · not counted
Pattern: severe-recklessness/disclosed-leveraged-distributions - OR Connection with a covered securities or swap transaction
Statutory transaction connection is shared across postures and includes the alternative security-based-swap-agreement branch. Purchaser/seller standing is a separate private-only requirement, not the meaning of this nexus. The source's subsection (b) says securities-based, while its concluding extension says security-based; both spellings are preserved.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No routes recorded for this element.
- OR Exchange-registered or unregistered security
Either securities alternative satisfies the instrument branch; the purchase-or-sale connection remains required.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No routes recorded for this element.
- OR Securities-based swap agreement and statutory extension
This statutory alternative is included in each core claim through transaction. The concluding provision extends fraud/manipulation/insider-trading rules and precedents to these agreements; its express exclusion of prophylactic reporting/recordkeeping rules limits that extension. It is not an exemption from fraud liability. The second sentence identifies additional precedents extended to these agreements, without creating claims under those other sections here.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No routes recorded for this element.
- OR Exchange-registered or unregistered security
- AND Private plaintiff's purchaser or seller status
Judge-made Blue Chip limitation on the implied private damages remedy. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71, 80–81, 84 (2006), explains and applies the distinction in deciding SLUSA preclusion; its broader preclusion rule does not expand the private federal remedy. A holder or disappointed offeree cannot qualify merely because fraud coincides with someone else's transaction. Contracts to buy or sell count under the statutory definitions; an unaccepted offer alone does not. Government claims do not require this element. The statutory swap extension applies precedents to covered agreements to the same extent.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No routes recorded for this element.
- AND Private investor transaction causation
Private plaintiff must connect the deceptive statement to the investment decision, subject to applicable rebuttable presumptions. Xia Bi addresses direct reliance in EB-5 investments; do not universalize that factual route into a rule excluding fraud-on-the-market reliance.
2 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) direct-reliance
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether the plaintiff actually relied on the misstatement. 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 11 Xia Bi v. McAuliffe — 927 F.3d 177 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Excluded context examples:
Pattern: direct/unspecified-investor-exposureXia Bi v. McAuliffe — 927 F.3d 177 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · applied/alternative · not counted
Pattern: direct/unread-offering-documentsfraud-on-the-market
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether the presumption of reliance applies or is rebutted. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds — 568 U.S. 455 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/procedural · not counted
Pattern: certification/truth-on-market-rebuttalsecondary-actor
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether investors relied on the undisclosed conduct of a party who made no public statement (Stoneridge). 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. — 552 U.S. 148 (2008) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2008 — not · pleaded (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: undisclosed-roundtrip-transactions - AND Actual economic loss in private damages action
The private remedy requires economic loss, unlike the core SEC violation. Mere payment of an inflated purchase price does not itself establish the loss identified in Dura.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) purchase-price-inflation
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether paying an artificially inflated purchase price is by itself an economic loss (Dura). 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo — 544 U.S. 336 (2005) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 — not · pleaded (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: purchase-inflation/spray-device - AND Causal connection between fraud and economic loss
Distinguish loss causation from reliance/transaction causation. Identify loss caused by the fraud rather than unrelated market or business developments; Dura does not require one particular form of corrective disclosure.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) purchase-price-inflation
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether an inflated purchase price, without a price decline tied to the truth emerging, pleads loss causation (Dura). 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo — 544 U.S. 336 (2005) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 — not · pleaded (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: purchase-inflation/no-loss-link - AND Fraudulent scheme or deceptive course of business
Rule 10b-5(a)/(c) can reach a person who is not the maker of a statement; Lorenzo as applied in Malouf is an SEC scheme-liability holding. It does not create private aiding-and-abetting liability or dispense with the private plaintiff's separate reliance requirement. Insider misappropriation requires a duty/trust relationship and deceptive use of material nonpublic information, not possession alone.
3 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) _comparator
accepted; provisional (1 case)The element is used as a yardstick for another statute or question, not applied to this case's own conduct. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples: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 · basis not recorded (15usc78j: author: Flash3 · QA: PASS (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · comparator/merits · not counted
Pattern: borrowing-statute/anti-fraud-prohibitioninsider-misappropriation
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether trading on information taken in breach of a duty of confidence is a deceptive device. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:United States v. Afriyie — 929 F.3d 63 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/procedural · not counted
Pattern: employment-confidentialityknowing-dissemination
provisional; 0 observed casesLorenzo permits liability under (a)/(c) for knowing dissemination despite lack of maker status under (b). 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 Never used: no annotation uses in this snapshot sham-transactions
provisional; provisional (1 case)Whether sham or backdated transactions are deceptive conduct. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. — 552 U.S. 148 (2008) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2008 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted
Pattern: deceptive-conduct/backdated-supply-contractsundisclosed-conflict-or-diversion
provisional; 2 observed casesWhether concealing a conflict of interest or diverting client money is a deceptive device. 3
Satisfied 3; not satisfied 0; excluded context 02 Malouf v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n — 933 F.3d 1248 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: conflict-concealment/bond-routing-and-firm-misstatementsU.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Hui Feng — 935 F.3d 721 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · law (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: commission-diversion/foreign-nominee-recruitersU.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Hui Feng — 935 F.3d 721 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · law (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/merits · counted
Pattern: commission-diversion/concealed-source-of-client-rebate - AND Additional criminal mental-state requirement
Criminal prosecution derives its willfulness requirement from §78ff(a), not express wording in §78j(b). Afriyie approved knowing/willful/intent-to-defraud instructions in an insider-trading prosecution and held the government retained the beyond-reasonable-doubt burden. The precise instruction must fit the charged theory.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
Curated routes and observed case patterns Route Definition Merits instance blocks Distinct merits cases Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) _procedural
accepted; provisional (1 case)The element is only the occasion for a procedural ruling. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 Used only in non-merits blocks (1).
Excluded context examples:United States v. Afriyie — 929 F.3d 63 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted
Pattern: criminal-instruction/burden-and-good-faith