Securities Regulation Keyed to Coffee
In re Cendant Corp. Litigation
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 $3.2 billion settlement of a securities fraud class action was approved by the district court and brought against Cendant Corp. and its auditors, Ernst & Young, and the plaintiff class was awarded $262 million in fees to counsel. A group comprised of three pension funds (the CalPERS Group) was selected by the court as lead plaintiff. As instructed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), the court identified that Group as being the movant with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. The court concluded that the CalPERS Group was the presumptive lead plaintiff, once they found the CalPERS Group as satisfying the adequacy and typicality requirements. Without a rebuttal to this statutory presumption, the lead plaintiff was appointed as CalPERS Group by the court. Then the CalPERS Grouprequested that the court appoint as lead counsel two firms it had elected. The court originally refused, opting to select lead counsel through an auction, however, the court permitted the CalPERS Group's chosen counsel the choice to match what the court decided to be thelowest qualified bid. That option was exercised by the firms and they were appointed as lead counsel. The petition of lead counsel of $262 million in fees was at least $76 million higher than that listed under its retainer agreement with the CalPERS Group. The court's use of an auction to choose lead counsel and its selection of CalPERS as lead plaintiff were challenged, and the court of appeals granted review.
- 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.