Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. BDO Seidman, LLP’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Analyzing the reliance element in third-party fraud cases, several decisions have suggested that a plaintiff may demonstrate reliance where the third party does not directly repeat the defendant’s misrepresentations to the plaintiff, but rather communicates them in a repackaged or summary form, on which the plaintiff then relied. In Tindle v. Birk-ett, 171 N.Y. 520 , 64 N.E. 210 (1902) for example, the New York Court of Appeals permitted recovery for misrepresentations made by the defendants to a credit rating agency for purposes of receiving a favorable rating. The plaintiffs never received those misrepresentations directly, but rather relied on the favorable credit rating the agency had formulated using the defendants’ misinformation. See id. at 522-23 , 64 N.E. 210 . The Court of Appeals found that because the plaintiffs extended credit to the defendants “in reliance on the correctness of the rating, without any other knowledge [of the defendant’s financial situation],” they had established the reliance necessary to sustain a fraud claim against the defendant. Id. at 523 , 64 N.E. 210 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Arnold Chevrolet LLC v. Tribune Co.

2. “Under New York law, a plaintiff may state a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation made to a third party if he alleges that he relied to his detriment on the defendant's misrepresentation and that the defendant intended the misrepresentation to be conveyed to him.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nagelberg v. Joseph Meli, Matthew Harriton, 875 Holdings, LLC

3. “FOTM” theory, a plaintiff claiming securities fraud under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reliance based on the notion that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 424 F. Supp. 2d 1002 - In Re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation