Rubin v. MF Global, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77O (§ 15 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[1] Directional Trading: That the prospectus misrepresented the types of trading — directional 4 or only hedging— conducted by MF Global; [2] Refco: That the prospectus failed to disclose the lack of adjustments to MF Global’s risk-management systems made during and after Man Group’s acquisition of Refco, another brokerage firm; [3] Risk Management: That the prospectus misrepresented and failed to disclose material facts relevant to the strengths and weaknesses of MF Global’s risk-management system; and [4]Client Accounts: That the prospectus failed to disclose “that traders did not have limits when trading for clients, and that with the proper password anyone could access client accounts and trade in them at any time,” id. at 470 ;”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Plaintiffs' allegations are based on information about the MF Global risk management system that was disclosed after the February 2008 Trading Incident.... [T]here is nothing to indicate that this was the state of affairs in July 2007, when the Prospectus was issued. In other words, Plaintiffs have offered no factual averments that the alleged misrepresentations and omissions were, in fact, false or misleading at the time the Prospectus was issued.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Court finds that it is appropriate to apply the “bespeaks caution” doctrine here because Plaintiffs’ objections to misrepresentations about specific or general shortcomings in MF Global’s risk management system that existed at the time the Prospectus was issued are, in fact, objections to Defendants’ alleged failure to disclose the possibility that the risk management system might be unable to prevent future negative outcomes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.