Is the jury verdict just and proper on the two deciding questions where the jury was not made aware of what constitutes violation of Federal law relating to fraud?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The district court excluded expert witness testimony. The First Circuit held that the proffered testimony “where not irrelevant” improperly impinged upon the role of the court in instructing jurors on the applicable legal standards. The district . court, however, neglected to instruct the jury on the integral federal securities laws relevant to the case, as was promised. Thus, the lay jury did not receive any guidance as to what “could constitute violation of Federal law relating to fraud;’ a _ pivotal component of the two deciding questions on the jury slip. ; 1. Is the jury verdict just and proper on the two deciding questions whether “Fidelity’s conduct could constitute ~ : violation of Federal law relating . to fraud against Fidelity’s mutual Fund shareholders,” where the jury was not : ; made aware of what constitutes “violation of Federal law relating to fraud?’ (Emphasis added). ; On March 04, 2014, this Court ruled in favor ; of the Petitioner, that the Respondents were covered entities under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley . Act, 18 U.S.C. § 15144. : : 2. Which party; the Petitioner or the Respondents, is liable for the attorney fees incurred for getting coverage for ; the Respondents under the Sarbanes: Oxley Act of 2002, on March 04, 2014, . at the United States Supreme Court? 1 PARTIES ' The petitioner is Jackie Hosang Lawson. . The respondents are FMR LLC, FMR Co. Inc., FMR Corp., Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC, and Fidelity Management & Research Company. All of the respondents are privately-held companies. . No Fidelity mutual fund is a party to this action. . . ii