context: In O'Hagan, an attorney who traded on client secrets had a fiduciary duty to inform his firm that he was trading on the basis of the confidential information. Even in Zandford, which dealt principally with the statutory requirement that a deceptive device be used "in connection with" the purchase or sale of a security, the defendant's fraud consisted of not telling his brokerage client -- to whom he owed a fiduciary duty -- that he was stealing assets from the account.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 535 U.S. 822, 822
citation_a.parenthetical: "[Defendant's brokerage clients] were injured as investors through [defendant's] deceptions, which deprived them of any compensation for the sale of their valuable securities."
citation_a.sentence: See 535 U.S. at 822, 122 S.Ct. 1899 (“[Defendant’s brokerage clients] were injured as investors through [defendant’s] deceptions, which deprived them of any compensation for the sale of their valuable securities.”); see also id. at 823, 122 S.Ct. 1899 (“[A]ny distinction between omissions and misrepresentations is illusory in the context of a broker who has a fiduciary duty to her clients.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: "[A]ny distinction between omissions and misrepresentations is illusory in the context of a broker who has a fiduciary duty to her clients."
citation_b.sentence: See 535 U.S. at 822, 122 S.Ct. 1899 (“[Defendant’s brokerage clients] were injured as investors through [defendant’s] deceptions, which deprived them of any compensation for the sale of their valuable securities.”); see also id. at 823, 122 S.Ct. 1899 (“[A]ny distinction between omissions and misrepresentations is illusory in the context of a broker who has a fiduciary duty to her clients.”).