Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

SEC Action Against Mark Cuban, and Criminal and Insurance Matters

By FindLaw Staff on September 24, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In American Int'l. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Rentech Steel LLC, No. 08-11052, an action by an insurer seeking a declaration that plaintiff had no duty to either defend defendant in an underlying state-court personal injury lawsuit or to indemnify defendant for the judgment, the court affirmed summary judgment for defendant where the Texas Workers' Compensation Act imposed no obligation on a nonsubscriber to compensate an employee for injuries sustained due to the employer's own negligence, and thus the exclusion was not applicable.

In SEC v. Cuban, No. 09-10996, an action by the SEC alleging that defendant, Mark Cuban, violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 by trading in stock in breach of his duty to the CEO and, amounting to insider trading under the misappropriation theory of liability, the court vacated the dismissal of the action, given the paucity of jurisprudence on the question of what constitutes a relationship of "trust and confidence" and the inherently fact-bound nature of determining whether such a duty exists.

In US v. Gamboa-Garcia, No. 09-50513, the court affirmed defendant's sentence for illegal re-entry after deportation, holding that the district court did not err in relying on the District Court of Arizona's prior determination that defendant's 2001 conviction was an aggravated felony, and it properly characterized her 2004 illegal re-entry conviction based on the earlier conviction.

In US v. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, No. 09-40889, the court affirmed defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, holding that 1) there was sufficient suspicious circumstantial evidence to support the search of defendant's vehicle and defendant's conviction; and 2) although an officer presented impermissible drug courier profile evidence at defendant's trial, this testimony did not affect defendant's substantial rights.

Related Resources

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard