
InStoneridge Investment Partners,LLC v.Scientific-Atlanta,Inc.referenced inthetext,the U.S Supreme Court analyzed the question ofwhether customer / supplier companies that agreed to arrangements allowing an issuer to mislead its auditor are liable in a private action under section 10(b) of the 1934 Act.The Court ruled:
A) that based on "scheme liability," the customer / supplier companies could be held liable although no public statement was made.
B) that based on "transaction causation" the plaintiffs could establish reliance and that the plaintiffs were, therefore, entitled to proceed.
C) that plaintiff investors had no private right of action because they did not rely upon the statements or representations at issue.
D) that the plaintiff investors had no private right of action because the defendants were not aiders and abettors and, instead, acted primarily on their own behalf outside the realm of securities regulation.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q27: There is no provision in the security
Q28: InMatrixx Initiatives v.Siracusano case referenced in the
Q31: In CASE 22.1SEC v.Texas Gulf Sulphur Co.(1971)the
Q33: The requirement that the defendant in a
Q34: Section 20(a)imposes _ liability on every person
Q35: A controlling shareholder is traditionally considered an
Q36: Lawsuits under Section 10(b)must be brought within
Q36: Under what circumstances will reliance be presumed
Q37: A right of action under section 10(b)may
Q38: In relation to forward-looking statements,under the bespeaks
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents