Securities Regulation Keyed to Coffee
Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Central Bank served as an indenture trustee for two bond issues made by the Colorado Building Authority with the bond covenants necessitating that the land value be 160% of the bonds outstanding principal and interest, minimum. Once the underwriter voiced concern that the 160% test was not being fulfilled, Central Bank’s in-house appraiser recommended maintaining an outside appraiser. At the request of the provider of the last appraisal, AmWest, Central Bank agreed to suspend the independent review. Prior to the independent review finished, the Authority defaulted on the bonds. Buyer of substantial bulk of the second bond issue, First Interstate, brought suit, claiming principal violations of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that Central Bank was vicariously liable for aiding and abetting the deception. The district court granted summary judgment to Central Bank. The court of appeals reversed. Central Bank appealed.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.