Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/587/17-1077/
Timestamp: 2019-07-22 07:32:02
Document Index: 445492470

Matched Legal Cases: ['§10', '§17', '§17', '§10', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§78', '§10', '§17', '§ 77', '§240', '§17', '§17', '§10', '§17', '§240', '§17', '§77', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§10', '§17', '§10', '§10', '§10', '§17', '§77', '§240', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§17', '§17']

Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission :: 587 U.S. ___ (2019) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 587 › Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission
SEC Rule 10b–5 makes it unlawful to (a) “employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,” (b) “make any untrue statement of a material fact,” or (c) “engage in any act, practice, or course of business” that “operates . . . as a fraud or deceit” in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. The Supreme Court has held that to be a “maker” of a statement under subsection (b), one must have “ultimate authority over the statement, including its content and whether and how to communicate it.” Lorenzo, a brokerage firm's director of investment banking, sent e-mails to prospective investors. The content, supplied by Lorenzo’s boss, described a potential investment in a company with “confirmed assets” of $10 million. Lorenzo knew that the company had recently disclosed that its total assets were worth less than $400,000. The SEC found that Lorenzo had violated Rule 10b–5, 17 CFR 240.10b–5; section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b); and section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 77q(a)(1).
The Supreme Court affirmed the D.C. Circuit in holding that Lorenzo could not be held liable as a “maker” under Rule 10b-5(b) but affirmed with respect to subsections (a) and (c) and statutory sections 10(b) and 17(a)(1). Dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud can fall within the scope of Rules 10b–5(a) and (c), and the statutory provisions, even if the disseminator did not “make” the statements under Rule 10b–5(b). By sending e-mails he understood to contain material untruths, Lorenzo “employ[ed]” a “device,” “scheme,” and “artifice to defraud” under subsection (a) and section 17(a)(1); he “engage[d] in a[n] act, practice, or course of business” that “operate[d] . . . as a fraud or deceit” under subsection (c). There is considerable overlap among the Rule's subsections and related statutory provisions. The "plainly fraudulent behavior" at issue might otherwise fall outside the Rule’s scope. The Court rejected Lorenzo’s claim that imposing primary liability upon his conduct would erase or weaken the distinction between primary and secondary liability under the statute’s “aiding and abetting” provision.
Dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud can fall within the scope of SEC Rules 10b–5(a) and (c), and provisions of the Securities Act and Exchange Act, even if the disseminator did not “make” the statements under Rule 10b–5(b).
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b–5 makes it unlawful to (a) “employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,” (b) “make any untrue statement of a material fact,” or (c) “engage in any act, practice, or course of business” that “operates . . . as a fraud or deceit” in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. In Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135, this Court held that to be a “maker” of a statement under subsection (b) of that Rule, one must have “ultimate authority over the statement, including its content and whether and how to communicate it.” Id., at 142 (emphasis added). On the facts of Janus, this meant that an investment adviser who had merely “participat[ed] in the drafting of a false statement” “made” by another could not be held liable in a private action under subsection (b). Id., at 145.
(a) It would seem obvious that the words in these provisions are, as ordinarily used, sufficiently broad to include within their scope the dissemination of false or misleading information with the intent to defraud. By sending e-mails he understood to contain material untruths, Lorenzo “employ[ed]” a “device,” “scheme,” and “artifice to defraud” within the meaning of subsection (a) of the Rule, §10(b), and §17(a)(1). By the same conduct, he “engage[d] in a[n] act, practice, or course of business” that “operate[d] . . . as a fraud or deceit” under subsection (c) of the Rule. As Lorenzo does not challenge the appeals court’s scienter finding, it is undisputed that he sent the e-mails with “intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud” the recipients. Aaron v. SEC, 446 U.S. 680, 686, and n. 5. Resort to the expansive dictionary definitions of “device,” “scheme,” and “artifice” in Rule 10b–5(a) and §17(a)(1), and of “act” and “practice” in Rule 10b–5(c), only strengthens this conclusion. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to see how Lorenzo’s actions could escape the reach of these provisions. Pp. 5–7.
In Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135 (2011), we examined the second of these provisions, Rule 10b–5(b), which forbids the “mak[ing]” of “any untrue statement of a material fact.” We held that the “maker of a statement is the person or entity with ultimate authority over the statement, including its content and whether and how to communicate it.” Id., at 142 (emphasis added). We said that “[w]ithout control, a person or entity can merely suggest what to say, not ‘make’ a statement in its own right.” Ibid. And we illustrated our holding with an analogy: “[W]hen a speechwriter drafts a speech, the content is entirely within the control of the person who delivers it. And it is the speaker who takes credit—or blame—for what is ultimately said.” Id., at 143. On the facts of Janus, this meant that an investment adviser who had merely “participat[ed] in the drafting of a false statement” “made” by another could not be held liable in a private action under subsection (b) of Rule 10b–5. Id., at 145.
Lorenzo appealed, arguing primarily that in sending the e-mails he lacked the intent required to establish a violation of Rule 10b–5, §10(b), and §17(a)(1), which we have characterized as “ ‘a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.’ ” Aaron v. SEC, 446 U.S. 680, 686, and n. 5 (1980). With one judge dissenting, the Court of Appeals panel rejected Lorenzo’s lack-of-intent argument. 872 F.3d 578, 583 (CADC 2017). Lorenzo does not challenge the panel’s scienter finding. Reply Brief 17.
Lorenzo then filed a petition for certiorari in this Court. We granted review to resolve disagreement about whether someone who is not a “maker” of a misstatement under Janus can nevertheless be found to have violated the other subsections of Rule 10b–5 and related provisions of the securities laws, when the only conduct involved concerns a misstatement. Compare e.g., 872 F.3d 578, with WPP Luxembourg Gamma Three Sarl v. Spot Runner, Inc., 655 F.3d 1039, 1057–1058 (CA9 2011).
Resort to dictionary definitions only strengthens this conclusion. A “ ‘device,’ ” we have observed, is simply “ ‘[t]hat which is devised, or formed by design’ ”; a “ ‘scheme’ ” is a “ ‘project,’ ” “ ‘plan[,] or program of something to be done’ ”; and an “ ‘artifice’ ” is “ ‘an artful stratagem or trick.’ ” Id., at 696, n. 13 (quoting Webster’s International Dictionary 713, 2234, 157 (2d ed. 1934) (Webster’s Second)). By these lights, dissemination of false or misleading material is easily an “artful stratagem” or a “plan,” “devised” to defraud an investor under subsection (a). See Rule 10b–5(a) (making it unlawful to “employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud”); §17(a)(1) (same). The words “act” and “practice” in subsection (c) are similarly expansive. Webster’s Second 25 (defining “act” as “a doing” or a “thing done”); id., at 1937 (defining “practice” as an “action” or “deed”); see Rule 10b–5(c) (making it unlawful to “engage in a[n] act, practice, or course of business” that “operates . . . as a fraud or deceit”).
The premise of this argument is that each of these provisions should be read as governing different, mutually exclusive, spheres of conduct. But this Court and the Commission have long recognized considerable overlap among the subsections of the Rule and related provisions of the securities laws. See Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 383 (1983) (“[I]t is hardly a novel proposition that” different portions of the securities laws “prohibit some of the same conduct” (internal quotation marks omitted)). As we have explained, these laws marked the “first experiment in federal regulation of the securities industry.” SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U.S. 180, 198 (1963). It is “understandable, therefore,” that “in declaring certain practices unlawful,” it was thought prudent “to include both a general proscription against fraudulent and deceptive practices and, out of an abundance of caution, a specific proscription against nondisclosure” even though “a specific proscription against nondisclosure” might in other circumstances be deemed “surplusage.” Id., at 198–199. “Each succeeding prohibition” was thus “meant to cover additional kinds of illegalities—not to narrow the reach of the prior sections.” United States v. Naftalin, 441 U.S. 768, 774 (1979). We have found “ ‘no warrant for narrowing alternative provisions . . . adopted with the purpose of affording added safeguards.’ ” Ibid. (quoting United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86, 93 (1941)); see Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128, 152–153 (1972) (While “the second subparagraph of [Rule 10b–5] specifies the making of an untrue statement . . . [t]he first and third subparagraphs are not so restricted”). And since its earliest days, the Commission has not viewed these provisions as mutually exclusive. See, e.g., In re R. D. Bayly & Co., 19 S. E. C. 773 (1945) (finding violations of what would become Rules 10b–5(b) and (c) based on the same misrepresentations and omissions); In re Arthur Hays & Co., 5 S. E. C. 271 (1939) (finding violations of both §§17(a)(2) and (a)(3) based on false representations in stock sales).
Coupled with the Rule’s expansive language, which readily embraces the conduct before us, this considerable overlap suggests we should not hesitate to hold that Lorenzo’s conduct ran afoul of subsections (a) and (c), as well as the related statutory provisions. Our conviction is strengthened by the fact that we here confront behavior that, though plainly fraudulent, might otherwise fall outside the scope of the Rule. Lorenzo’s view that subsection (b), the making-false-statements provision, exclusively regulates conduct involving false or misleading statements would mean those who disseminate false statements with the intent to cheat investors might escape liability under the Rule altogether. But using false representations to induce the purchase of securities would seem a paradigmatic example of securities fraud. We do not know why Congress or the Commission would have wanted to disarm enforcement in this way. And we cannot easily reconcile Lorenzo’s approach with the basic purpose behind these laws: “to substitute a philosophy of full disclosure for the philosophy of caveat emptor and thus to achieve a high standard of business ethics in the securities industry.” Capital Gains, 375 U. S., at 186. See also, e.g., SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 299 (1946) (the securities laws were designed “to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits”).
Next, Lorenzo points to the statute’s “aiding and abetting” provision. 15 U. S. C. §78t(e). This provision, enforceable only by the Commission (and not by private parties), makes it unlawful to “knowingly or recklessly . . . provid[e] substantial assistance to another person” who violates the Rule. Ibid.; see Janus, 564 U. S., at 143 (citing Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994)). Lorenzo claims that imposing primary liability upon his conduct would erase or at least weaken what is otherwise a clear distinction between primary and secondary (i.e., aiding and abetting) liability. He emphasizes that, under today’s holding, a disseminator might be a primary offender with respect to subsection (a) of Rule 10b–5 (by employing a “scheme” to “defraud”) and also secondarily liable as an aider and abettor with respect to subsection (b) (by providing substantial assistance to one who “makes” a false statement). And he refers to two cases that, in his view, argue in favor of circumscribing primary liability. See Central Bank, 511 U. S., at 164; Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148 (2008).
We do not believe, however, that our decision creates a serious anomaly or otherwise weakens the distinction between primary and secondary liability. For one thing, it is hardly unusual for the same conduct to be a primary violation with respect to one offense and aiding and abetting with respect to another. John, for example, might sell Bill an unregistered firearm in order to help Bill rob a bank, under circumstances that make him primarily li- able for the gun sale and secondarily liable for the bank robbery.
For another, the cases to which Lorenzo refers do not help his cause. Take Central Bank, where we held that Rule 10b–5’s private right of action does not permit suits against secondary violators. 511 U. S., at 177. The holding of Central Bank, we have said, suggests the need for a “clean line” between conduct that constitutes a primary violation of Rule 10b–5 and conduct that amounts to a secondary violation. Janus, 564 U. S., at 143, and n. 6. Thus, in Janus, we sought an interpretation of “make” that could neatly divide primary violators and actors too far removed from the ultimate decision to communicate a statement. Ibid. (citing Central Bank, 511 U. S. 164). The line we adopt today is just as administrable: Those who disseminate false statements with intent to defraud are primarily liable under Rules 10b–5(a) and (c), §10(b), and §17(a)(1), even if they are secondarily liable under Rule 10b–5(b). Lorenzo suggests that classifying dissemination as a primary violation would inappropriately subject peripheral players in fraud (including him, naturally) to substantial liability. We suspect the investors who received Lorenzo’s e-mails would not view the deception so favorably. And as Central Bank itself made clear, even a bit participant in the securities markets “may be liable as a primary violator under [Rule] 10b–5” so long as “all of the requirements for primary liability . . . are met.” Id., at 191.
Lorenzo’s reliance on Stoneridge is even further afield. There, we held that private plaintiffs could not bring suit against certain securities defendants based on undisclosed deceptions upon which the plaintiffs could not have relied. 552 U. S., at 159. But the Commission, unlike private parties, need not show reliance in its enforcement actions. And even supposing reliance were relevant here, Lorenzo’s conduct involved the direct transmission of false statements to prospective investors intended to induce reliance—far from the kind of concealed fraud at issue in Stoneridge.
“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or in- directly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of in- terstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange—
“(b) To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities ex- change or any security not so registered, or any securities-based swap agreement[,] any manipulative or decep- tive 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.”
In Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135 (2011), we drew a clear line between primary and secondary liability in fraudulent-misstatement cases: A person does not “make” a fraudulent misstatement within the meaning of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b–5(b)—and thus is not primarily liable for the statement—if the person lacks “ultimate authority over the statement.” Id., at 142. Such a person could, however, be liable as an aider and abettor under principles of secondary liability.
In 2013, the SEC brought enforcement proceedings against the owner of the firm, the firm itself, and Lorenzo. Even though Lorenzo sent the e-mails at the owner’s request, the SEC did not charge Lorenzo with aiding and abetting fraud committed by the owner. See 15 U. S. C. §§ 77o(b), 78o(b)(4)(E), 78t(e). Instead, the SEC charged Lorenzo as a primary violator of multiple securities laws,[1] including Rule 10b–5(b), which prohibits “mak[ing] any untrue statement of a material fact . . . in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.” 17 CFR §240.10b–5(b) (2018); see Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 212–214 (1976) (construing Rule 10b–5(b) to require scienter). The SEC ultimately concluded that, by “knowingly sen[ding] materially misleading language from his own email account to prospective investors,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 77, Lorenzo violated Rule 10b–5(b) and several other antifraud provisions of the securities laws. The SEC “barred [him] from serving in the securities industry” for life. Id., at 91.
The Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the SEC’s determination that Lorenzo violated Rule 10b–5(b). Applying Janus, the court held that Lorenzo did not “make” the false statements at issue because he merely “transmitted statements devised by [his boss] at [his boss’] direction.” 872 F.3d 578, 587 (CADC 2017). The SEC has not challenged that aspect of the decision below.
We can quickly dispose of Rule 10b–5(a) and §17(a)(1). The act of knowingly disseminating a false statement at the behest of its maker, without more, does not amount to “employ[ing] any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud” within the meaning of those provisions. As the contemporaneous dictionary definitions cited by the majority make clear, each of these words requires some form of planning, designing, devising, or strategizing. See ante, at 6. We have previously observed that “the terms ‘device,’ ‘scheme,’ and ‘artifice’ all connote knowing or intentional practices.” Aaron v. SEC, 446 U.S. 680, 696 (1980) (emphasis added). In other words, they encompass “fraudulent scheme[s],” such as a “ ‘short selling’ scheme,” a wash sale, a matched order, price rigging, or similar conduct. United States v. Naftalin, 441 U.S. 768, 770, 778 (1979) (applying §17(a)(1)); see Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green, 430 U.S. 462, 473 (1977) (interpreting the term “manipulative” in §10(b)).
The remaining provision, Rule 10b–5(c), seems broader at first blush. But the scope of this conduct-based provision—and, for that matter, Rule 10b–5(a) and §17(a)(1)—must be understood in light of its codification alongside a prohibition specifically addressing primary liability for false statements. Rule 10b–5(b) imposes primary liability on the “make[r]” of a fraudulent misstatement. 17 CFR §240.10b–5(b); see Janus, 564 U. S., at 141–142. And §17(a)(2) imposes primary liability on a person who “obtain[s] money or property by means of” a false statement. 15 U. S. C. §77q(a)(2). The conduct-based provisions of Rules 10b–5(a) and (c) and §17(a)(1) must be interpreted in view of the specificity of these false-statement provisions, and therefore cannot be construed to encompass primary liability solely for false statements. This view is consistent with our previous recognition that “each subparagraph of §17(a) ‘proscribes a distinct category of misconduct’ ” and “ ‘is meant to cover additional kinds of illegalities.’ ” Aaron, supra, at 697 (quoting Naftalin, supra, at 774; emphasis added).
The majority disregards these express limitations. Under the Court’s rule, a person who has not “made” a fraudulent misstatement within the meaning of Rule 10b–5(b) nevertheless could be held primarily liable for facilitating that same statement; the SEC or plaintiff need only relabel the person’s involvement as an “act,” “device,” “scheme,” or “artifice” that violates Rule 10b–5(a) or (c). And a person could be held liable for a fraudulent misstatement under §17(a)(1) even if the person did not obtain money or property by means of the statement. In short, Rule 10b–5(b) and §17(a)(2) are rendered entirely superfluous in fraud cases under the majority’s reading.[2]
This approach is in tension with “ ‘the cardinal rule that, if possible, effect shall be given to every clause and part of a statute.’ ” RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. 639, 645 (2012) (quoting D. Ginsberg & Sons, Inc. v. Popkin, 285 U.S. 204, 208 (1932)). I would therefore apply the “old and familiar rule ” that “the specific governs the general.” RadLAX, supra, at 645–646 (internal quotation marks omitted); see A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law 51 (2012) (canon equally applicable to statutes and regulations). This canon of construction applies not only to resolve “contradiction[s]” between general and specific provisions, but also to avoid “the superfluity of a specific provision that is swallowed by the general one.” RadLAX, 566 U. S., at 645. Here, liability for false statements is “ ‘specifically dealt with’ ” in Rule 10b–5(b) and §17(a)(2). Id., at 646 (quoting D. Ginsberg & Sons, supra, at 208). But Rule 10b–5 and §17(a) also contain general prohibitions that, “ ‘in [their] most comprehensive sense, would include what is embraced in’ ” the more specific provisions. 566 U. S., at 646. I would hold that the provisions specifically addressing false statements “ ‘must be operative’ ” as to false-statement cases, and that the more general provisions should be read to apply “ ‘only [to] such cases within [their] general language as are not within the’ ” purview of the specific provisions on false statements. Ibid.
Adopting this approach to the statutory text would align with our previous admonitions that the securities laws should not be “[v]iewed in isolation” and stretched to their limits. Hochfelder, 425 U. S., at 212. In Hochfelder, for example, we concluded that the key words of §10(b) employed the “terminology of intentional wrongdoing” and thus “strongly suggest[ed]” that it “proscribe[s] knowing or intentional misconduct,” even though the statute did not expressly state as much. Id., at 197, 214. We took a similar approach to §17(a)(1) of the 1933 Act. Aaron, 446 U. S., at 695–697. We have also limited the terms of Rule 10b–5 by recognizing that it was adopted pursuant to §10(b) and thus “encompasses only conduct already prohibited by §10(b).” Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148, 157 (2008); see Hochfelder, supra, at 212–214.
First, the majority’s opinion renders Janus a dead letter. In Janus, we held that liability under Rule 10b–5(b) was limited to the “make[r]” of the statement and that “[o]ne who prepares or publishes a statement on behalf of another is not its maker” within the meaning of Rule 10b–5(b). 564 U. S., at 142 (emphasis added). It is undisputed here that Lorenzo was not the maker of the fraudulent misstatements. The majority nevertheless finds primary liability under different provisions of Rule 10b–5, without any real effort to reconcile its decision with Janus. Al- though it “assume[s] that Janus would remain relevant (and preclude liability) where an individual neither makes nor disseminates false information,” in the next breath the majority states that this would be true only if “the individual is not involved in some other form of fraud.” Ante, at 10. Given that, under the majority’s rule, administrative acts undertaken in connection with a fraudulent misstatement qualify as “other form[s] of fraud,” the majority’s supposed preservation of Janus is illusory.
Second, the majority fails to maintain a clear line between primary and secondary liability in fraudulent-misstatement cases. Maintaining this distinction is important because, as the majority notes, there is no private right of action against mere aiders and abettors. Ante, at 10; see Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A., 511 U.S. 164, 191 (1994). Here, however, the majority does precisely what we declined to do in Janus: impose broad liability for fraudulent misstatements in a way that makes the category of aiders and abettors in these cases “almost nonexistent.” 564 U. S., at 143. If Lorenzo’s conduct here qualifies for primary liability under §10(b) and Rule 10b–5(a) or (c), then virtually any person who assists with the making of a fraudulent misstatement will be primarily liable and thereby subject not only to SEC enforcement, but private lawsuits.
The Court correctly notes that it is not uncommon for the same conduct to be a primary violation with respect to one offense and aiding and abetting with respect to another—as, for example, when someone illegally sells a gun to help another person rob a bank. Ante, at 11. But this case does not involve two distinct crimes. The majority has interpreted certain provisions of an offense so broadly as to render superfluous the more stringent, on-point requirements of a narrower provision of the same offense. Criminal laws regularly and permissibly overlap with each other in a way that allows the same conduct to constitute different crimes with different punishments. That differs significantly from interpreting provisions in a law to completely eliminate specific limitations in a neighboring provision of that very same law. The majority’s overreading of Rules 10b–5(a) and (c) and §17(a)(1) is especially problematic because the heartland of these provisions is conduct-based fraud—“employ[ing] [a] device, scheme, or artifice to defraud” or “engag[ing] in any act, practice, or course of business”—not mere misstatements. 15 U. S. C. §77q(a)(1); 17 CFR §§240.10b–5(a), (c).
The Court attempts to cabin the implications of its holding by highlighting several facts that supposedly would distinguish this case from a case involving a secretary or other person “tangentially involved in disseminat[ing]” fraudulent misstatements. Ante, at 7. None of these distinctions withstands scrutiny. The fact that Lorenzo “sent false statements directly to investors” in e-mails that “invited [investors] to follow up with questions,” ibid., puts him in precisely the same position as a secretary asked to send an identical message from her e-mail account. And under the unduly capacious interpretation that the majority gives to the securities laws, I do not see why it would matter whether the sender is the “vice president of an investment banking company” or a secretary, ibid.—if the sender knowingly sent false statements, the sender apparently would be primarily liable. To be sure, I agree with the majority that liability would be “inappropriate” for a secretary put in a situation similar to Lorenzo’s. Ibid. But I can discern no legal principle in the majority opinion that would preclude the secretary from being pursued for primary violations of the securities laws.
2 I recognize that §17(a)(1) could be deemed narrower than §17(a)(2) in the sense that it requires scienter, whereas §17(a)(2) does not. Aaron v. SEC, 446 U.S. 680, 697 (1980). But scienter is not disputed in this case, and the specific terms of §17(a)(2) are otherwise completely subsumed within the more general terms of §17(a)(1), as interpreted by the majority.
December 15, 2017 Application (17A657) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 28, 2017 to January 26, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.
December 19, 2017 Application (17A657) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until January 26, 2018.
January 26, 2018 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 2, 2018)
February 23, 2018 Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 2, 2018 to April 2, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
February 27, 2018 Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 2, 2018.
March 26, 2018 Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 2, 2018 to May 2, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
March 28, 2018 Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 2, 2018.
May 2, 2018 Brief of respondent Securities and Exchange Commission in opposition filed.
May 23, 2018 Reply of petitioner Francis V. Lorenzo filed. (Distributed)
July 31, 2018 Motion to extend the time to file the opening briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 20, 2018. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 5, 2018.
July 31, 2018 Motion for an extension of time to file the opening briefs on the merits filed.
August 20, 2018 Brief of Francis V. Lorenzo submitted.
August 20, 2018 Brief of petitioner Francis V. Lorenzo filed.
August 27, 2018 Amicus brief of Securities Law Professors submitted.
August 27, 2018 Amicus brief of Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America submitted.
August 27, 2018 Brief amicus curiae of Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.
August 27, 2018 Brief amicus curiae of Securities Law Professors filed.
August 27, 2018 Brief amici curiae of Securities Law Professors filed.
August 27, 2018 Brief amici curiae of Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.