Confirm favorite deletion?
Securities Regulation Keyed to Coffee
Semerenko v. Cendant Corp.
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 class of investors (Class) claimed that Cendant Corp. (Cendant) and its directors, officers, and accountant made misstatements regarding Cendant throughout a tender offer for shares of American Bankers Insurance Group, Inc. (ABI) common stock resulting in falsely raising the price the Class bought its shares of ABI,and when disclosed, the misstatements triggered the expiration of the merger contract and a ensuing loss for the investors. In early 1998, Cendantprovided a competing tender offer for ABI at $58 per share and in accordance with its tender offer, Cendant filed with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) a Schedule l4D-l that exaggerated its earnings in previous financial reporting periods. American International Group, Inc. (AIG) reacted by making an identicaltender offer and Cendant changed its offer to $67 per share. Cendantproceeded to engage in a merger agreement with ABI. On April 15, 1998, Cendant declared that its previous financial reports were not dependable as a result of accounting abnormalities found, and that the abnormalities were present in just one unit, accounting for less than a third of Cendant'stake-homerevenue. On the heels of the declaration, ABI stock price declined about 11%. Afterwards, Cendant continued to state that it planned on finishing the ABI merger. In July 1998, Cendantdisclosed that the April declaration contained errors, stating that the true revenue loss would be double the amount initially reported, and that more abnormalities in other units have been found.Cendantdistributedadditional press releases along with an audit report, more press releases and an audit report that specified there had been fraudulent financial reportingin August 1998. Following the filing of the audit with the SEC the ABI common stock price fell further. Cendant filed an amended Form 10-K for 1997 in September of 1998declaring losses of $217.2 million, instead of profits of $55.5 million, and the price of ABI dropped yet again. Finally in October 1998, Cendant and ABI reported that they were ending the merger. ABI stock plummeted once again, this time the investors filed suit under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim, clarifying that the complaint did not establish that the Class’s buying of ABI common stock was not done in connection with the making of the purported misstatement s, that the Class relied on the misstatement s, and that the Classendured a loss as the proximate result of the allegedmisstatement s. 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.