DeAngelis v. Corzine’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77B (§ 2 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77I (§ 9 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77J (§ 10 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77O (§ 15 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Z (§ 27a of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 788 · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint, not to assay the weight of the evidence which might be offered in support thereof.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) [t]o employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, (b) [t]o make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact ... or (c) [t]o engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates ... as a fraud or deceit ....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[FJirst, MFG-UK purchased European sovereign debt securities on the London Clearing House (“LCH”) exchange. MFG-UK then sold those securities to MFGI. Next, MFGI and MFG-UK entered into an RTM agreement. MFGI thus sold the securities to MFG-UK while the firms simultaneously entered a contract for MFGI to repurchase the securities on the securities’ maturity dates, at the same price plus a pre-negotiated interest payment. MFG-UK, which now owned the securities, then engaged in a similar repurchase transaction with a counterparty through the LCH. The repurchase date on that transaction was scheduled for two days before the securities’ maturity date. MFG-UK thus bore the risk of default on the security, and MFGI was responsible for maintaining liquidity to cover the possible default. MFGI was also expected to provide MFG-UK with funds to cover margin calls or anticipated margin calls from the LCH. The RTM Strategy provided MF Global with several accounting advantages. First, the RTM transactions could be counted as sales, rather than as loans, even though MFGI and MFG-UK were contractually obligated to repay the final counterparty for the securities. The obligation to repay was thus “de-recognized”—it did not appear as a liability on MF Global’s balance sheet. The RTM transactions also allowed MF Global to report the transactions as gains at the time of the sale, notwithstanding the subsequent obligation to repay the sale price. Finally, because no liability appeared on MF Globa”
2 later decisions 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.