143707P.pdf   03/22/2016  U.S. Securities and Exchange  v.  Marlon Quan
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3707
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Smith and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Securities Fraud. Jury verdicts finding defendant violated 
   Rule 10b-5 but did not violate Section 17(a)(1) of the securities Act or 
   aid and abet his securities firm in violating Rule 10(b)(5) were not 
   internally inconsistent, as the bar for finding liability under Section 
   17(a)(1) was higher and the jury could find that defendant made a false 
   statement or misleading statement (thus incurring Rule 10(b)(5) liability) 
   without concluding that he did enough beyond that (at least with scienter) 
   to rise to the level of employing a device, scheme or artifice to defraud 
   (as would be required for Section 17(a)(1) liability); nor, in light of 
   the evidence, was the verdict inconsistent in imposing personal liability 
   for the Rule 10(b)(5) violation but not aiding-and-abetting liability; 
   jury did not need to unanimously agree on a particular false statement or 
   omission to impose liability; the district court could order disgorgement 
   as a permissible equitable remedy.