Confirm favorite deletion?
Securities Regulation Keyed to Coffee
Ganino v. Citizens Util. Co.
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 publically traded company, Citizens Utility Company, made and obtained about $10 million in dues from Hungarian Telephone & Cable Corp (HTCC) in 1995 for loans Citizens made to it. This amount was documented in 1996 as first and second quarter revenues but due to Citizens’ 1995 annual fiscal statement (1995 Form 10-K) reported that Citizens had been paid by HTCC, buyers of Citizens stock filed suit under 10b-5 claiming they had been deceived into trusting the $10.1 million booked in 1996 as new earnings. In particular, Citizens reported a 15% rise for the first quarter of 1996 (when compared with the same time the previous year) failing to mention that a majority of this rise was attributed to HTCC in 95, instead stated in its First Quarter 10-Q. Comparably, Citizens announced a 10% rise for the second quarter and again failed to mention that most of the increase was due to HTCC fees. Ensuing press releases and in Citzens’ Third Quarter 1996 Form 10-Q and the 1996 Form 10-K contained the statement of these fees. The HTCC fees totaled 1.7% of Citizens entire 1996 profits or, about $22 million. Citizens reported less than anticipated income for the first quarter of 1997 but stated it was not related to a decline in HTCC fees. The district court held that the purported distortions were immaterial as a matter of law as a result of the total amounting to only 1.7% of Citzens income in 1996. 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.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.