Answer · confidence: thin
What was the SEC case in that 2021 paper, and did the judge rule?
Research question: What is the case name and docket for the SEC Rule 10b-5 settlement-fund enforcement action described in the 2021 SSRN paper, and did the court rule on the "in connection with" dismissal argument?
The provided facts do not identify the 2021 SSRN paper or any SEC Rule 10b-5 settlement-fund enforcement action, so the question cannot be fully answered. The closest case name is Menora Mivtachim Ins. Ltd. v. Frutarom Indus. Ltd., docket number 21-1076 1, but no fact describes it as an SEC settlement-fund action. The records give conflicting decision dates for it, September 30, 2022 3 and November 30, 2022 1. The SEC v. Crowe excerpt gives no docket number, settlement fund, or ruling on the "in connection with" argument 5, and the other sources concern private class actions 48. None of the facts show whether any court ruled on that argument. The newest fact is dated April 16, 2024 89, roughly two and a half years before October 2026.
Checked 2026-10-22. Only documented and supported facts are used.
Dig deeper on this questionSources
[1] documented
The case is Menora Mivtachim Ins. Ltd. v. Frutarom Indus. Ltd. with docket number 21-1076.
"Menora Mivtachim Ins. Ltd. v. Frutarom Indus. Ltd. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit August Term 2021 Argued: February 10, 2022 Decided: September 30, 2022 Amended: November 30, 2022 No. 21-1076"Menora Mivtachim Ins. Ltd. v. Frutarom Indus. Ltd. (Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2022-11-30)
[2] documented
The case is Menora Mivtachim Ins. Ltd. v. Frutarom Indus. Ltd. with docket number 21-1076.
"Menora Mivtachim Ins. Ltd. v. Frutarom Indus. Ltd. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit August Term 2021 Argued: February 10, 2022 Decided: September 30, 2022 No. 21-1076"Menora Mivtachim Ins. Ltd. v. Frutarom Indus. Ltd. (Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2022-09-30)
[3] documented
The case was argued on February 10, 2022, and decided on September 30, 2022.
"Argued: February 10, 2022 Decided: September 30, 2022"Menora Mivtachim Ins. Ltd. v. Frutarom Indus. Ltd. (Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2022-09-30)
[4] documented
The excerpt describes Waterford Twp. Police v. Mattel as a private putative securities class action, not an SEC enforcement action, brought on behalf of Mattel securities purchasers during the Class Period.
"Plaintiff is the lead plaintiff in this putative securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Mattel's publicly traded securities between October 20, 2016 and April 20, 2017 (the "Class Period")."Waterford Twp. Police v. Mattel, Inc. (District Court, C.D. California, 2018-05-24)
[5] supported
The SEC filed a four-count complaint against Robert B. Crowe alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The excerpt does not give a docket number, mention a settlement fund, or say whether the court ruled on the "in connection with" argument.
"The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a four-count complaint against Robert B. Crowe, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”"United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Crowe (District Court, S.D. Ohio, 2016-10-20)
[6] supported
The excerpt identifies the operative pleading as plaintiffs' 100-page Consolidated Class Action Complaint (CCAC), filed as Dkt. No. 45. The excerpt does not address the SEC settlement-fund claim or any ruling on the 'in connection with' argument.
"The facts at issue in this case, as pleaded in plaintiffs' 100-page Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("CCAC"), (Dkt. No. 45), are well-known to the parties."City of Miami Gen. Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Ret. Trust v. RH, Inc. (District Court, N.D. California, 2018-02-26)
[7] supported
The Second Circuit decided this case on December 17, 2021, after argument on September 27, 2021.
"(Argued: September 27, 2021 Decided: December 17, 2021)"In Re: The Hain Celestial Group (Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2021-12-17)
[8] supported
The case described in this source is a private putative class action against Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, not an SEC settlement-fund enforcement action.
"In the underlying suit in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York, shareholders brought a putative class action against Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. (Macquarie) alleging a violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 based on Macquarie’s failure to make a disclosure under Item 303."US Supreme Court Limits Scope of Omission Liability for Section 10(b) Securities Fraud Claims - Troutman Pepper Locke
[9] supported
The district court dismissed the Macquarie suit because the plaintiffs failed to allege an Item 303 violation, and it said it did not need to reach the Section 10(b) question.
"The district court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege an Item 303 violation because they failed to identify an uncertainty that should have been disclosed."US Supreme Court Limits Scope of Omission Liability for Section 10(b) Securities Fraud Claims - Troutman Pepper Locke