Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Materiality is particularly important in the context of securities law, because under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, a company can be held civilly or criminally liable for false, misleading, or omitted statements of fact in proxy statements and other documents, if the fact in question is found by the court to have been material pursuant ...
In other words, the court must determine whether under all the circumstances, the omitted fact would have assumed actual significance in the decision of the shareholder. Thus, materiality is a mixed question of fact and law.
Materiality (digital text), refers to the physical medium used to store and convey the text; Materiality (law), a legal term that has different meanings depending on context; Materiality (social sciences and humanities), the notion that the physical properties of a cultural artifact have consequences for how the object is used
These are roughly comparable to the elements of common law fraud, which are i) Deception; ii) Materiality; iii) with Intent to Cause Reliance; that iv) causes Actual Reliance; and v) Harm. In a case for insider trading, anyone who uses insider information can be held liable. A tippee can be liable if the tipper breached a fiduciary duty and the ...
Since "planning materiality" should affect the scope of both tests of controls and substantive tests, such differences might be of importance. Two different auditors auditing even the same entity might generate differing scopes of audit procedures, solely based on the "planning materiality" definition used.
The evolution of United States perjury law has experienced the most debate with regards to the materiality requirement. Fundamentally, statements that are literally true cannot provide the basis for a perjury charge [56] (as they do not meet the falsehood requirement) just as answers to truly ambiguous statements cannot constitute perjury. [57]
A material fact is a fact that a reasonable person would recognize as relevant to a decision to be made, as distinguished from an insignificant, trivial, or unimportant detail.
In United States patent law, inequitable conduct is a breach of the applicant's duty of candor and good faith during patent prosecution or similar proceedings by misrepresenting or omitting material information with the specific intent to deceive the United States Patent and Trademark Office.