Securities Regulation Keyed to Coffee
Elkind v. Liggett & Myers, Inc.
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:
A diversified company, Liggett & Myers, Inc. (Liggett), had financial analysts in their employ to participate in a public relations operation. One of the analysts communicated with Liggett’s Director of Corporate Communications via telephone on July 10, 1972, and was met with a noncommittal response to his anticipated revenue inquiry. The analyst sent a wire to his firm’s bureaus, informing them that one of the firms’ customers sold 100 Liggett shares as a result of an adversarialdeduction taken from the Director’s reply. On July 17, an analyst from a different firm question Liggett’s Chief Financial Officer if it was anticipated that revenue would drop. It is purported that the officer responded with a “grudging” confirmation, also stating that it was “confidential.” Regardless, the analyst reported to his firm and its clients sold 1,800 shares of Liggett. Elkind, on behalf of Liggett’s ignorant shareholders, filed suit against the corporation under Rule 10b-5, promoted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for producing the disclosures, following a July 18 press release containing the information that Liggett put out. Liggett’s per share price was $55 5/8 on July 17 and following the press release, by July 19, dropped to $46 3/8. The district court awarded the damages by taking the difference between what the plaintiff class paid for their stock and what they would have received if there had been a public disclosure, amounting to over $1 million, including the prejudgment interest. Liggett 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.