Difference between revisions of "Ernst and Ernst v. Hochfelder"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (bold) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In ''Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder'', 425 U.S. 185 (1976), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that to establish liability under the [[securities]] laws, § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, a private [[plaintiff]] must prove that the defendant acted with scienter, "a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud." ''Id.'' at 193-194, and n. 12. The Court reversed a judgment based on evidence that lacked this proof. | + | In '''''Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder''''', 425 U.S. 185 (1976), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that to establish liability under the [[securities]] laws, § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, a private [[plaintiff]] must prove that the defendant acted with scienter, "a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud." ''Id.'' at 193-194, and n. 12. The Court reversed a judgment based on evidence that lacked this proof. |
Justices [[Harry Blackmun]] and [[William Brennan]] dissented. | Justices [[Harry Blackmun]] and [[William Brennan]] dissented. | ||
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Revision as of 02:05, April 30, 2008
In Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185 (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court held that to establish liability under the securities laws, § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, a private plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with scienter, "a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud." Id. at 193-194, and n. 12. The Court reversed a judgment based on evidence that lacked this proof.
Justices Harry Blackmun and William Brennan dissented.