LexisNexis Overview: There was no allegation that an investment advisor
filed prospectuses and falsely attributed them to a mutual fund, nor did the
prospectuses indicate that they came from the advisor instead of the fund;
thus, the advisor did not "make" allegedly misleading statements, and
claims under 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b) and 15 U.S.C.S. § 78j(b) failed.
Counsel: Mark A. Perry argued the cause for petitioner.
Curtis E. Gannon argued the
cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of court.
David C. Frederick argued the
cause for respondent.
J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA,
KENNEDY, and ALITO, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which
GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced
version of Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders
Non-subscribers can view the free, unenhanced
version of Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders on
lexisONE's Free Case Law
Lexis.com subscribers may view the Supreme Court Briefs in this case.