Securities Regulation Keyed to Coffee
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner& Smith Inc. v. Dabit
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:
To further his state-law claims that Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner& Smith (Merrill Lynch), Dabit’s previous employer, illegally manipulated stock prices, which caused him, other brokers and their clients to retain their overvalued securitiesDabit filed a private securities fraud class action in federal court, invoking diversity jurisdiction. Merrill Lynch breaching the fiduciary duty and covenant of good faith and fair dealing owed its brokers by promulgating deceiving research via its research analysts (which the brokers rely on) thus manipulating stock prices was the central part of the complaint along with Merrill Lynch using its deceived brokers to increase the cost of its investment banking clients’ stocks. Had the brokers and clients been cognizant of the reality, they would have sold their stocks instead of retaining them and allegedly suffered injuries as a result. The brokers were purportedly injured as a result of their clients learning they made poor investments and so taking their business away, and so consequently, lost their commission fees. This amended complaint was dismissed by the district court, finding his claims obstructed by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), which offers "covered class action" based on state law and purporting "a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security" "may be maintained in any state or federal court by any private party." 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f)(l )(A).The court of appeals vacated the judgment and concluded that, regarding the complaint claiming that brokers were illegally induced to delay or retain selling stock, it is not covered by SLUSA’s obstructive scope due to the court finding that the allegations stated by holders failed to claim fraud "in connectionwith the purchase or sale" of securities under SLUSA. Certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court.
- 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.