Description
- Your write-up should be 1 to 2 pages, single spaced, at standard type face (12 or 14 point).
- It should briefly (in very few sentences) lay out the basic facts of the case. These are usually generally agreed upon by the time it gets to final appeal stage; i.e., the Supreme Court of a Federal District court.
- What is much more important is the issue at law – the dispute about what the law means or how it should be interpreted.
- What was the majority of the court’s decision in the case, and – more importantly – what was the basicreasoning behind this decision?
- If you are asked to read a dissent in the case, what was the decision and reasoning in the minority?
- Do you agree or disagree with the court’s decision? Explain why.
Explanation & Answer
Attached. Please let me know if you have any questions or need revisions.
Case Write-Up
The issue of misrepresentation made the government develop federal securities laws to reduce
frauds resulting from deception. Rule 10(b)-5 prohibits companies from making false statements
or omit some details about facts during the sale and purchase of a security.
I.
II.
The facts that made up the case are as follows.
The issue at law, in this case, is aiding and abetting because it is the main issue that made
the court think about how the law should be interpreted.
III.
The majority decision concerning this case was that the Central Bank was not liable for
being an aider and abettor as long as the 10(b) rule is concerned.
IV.
The dissenting opinions came from Justice Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Blackmun,
and they decided that the Central Bank was liable as the aider or abettor in the violation
of rule 10(b).
Running head: CASE WRITE-UP
1
Case Write-up
Name
Institution Affiliation
Date
2
CASE WRITE-UP
Case Write-Up
The issue of misrepresentation made the government develop federal securities laws to
reduce frauds resulting from deception. Rule 10(b)-5 prohibits companies from making false
statements or omit some details about facts during the sale and purchase of a security. Under this
federal security law, a company is liable for damages caused by deceitful information. However,
rule 10(b)-5 has limitations when it comes to liability because one must be the primary violator
or someone who has control over the violator. In a case where the suspect did not perform the
actual deceptive fraudulent behavior, the law may not apply. A good example of such a case is
the Central Bank of Denver vs. the First Interstate Bank of Denver. In this case, the Central Bank
was accused of aiding and abetting fraud by failing to give the required information to the bond.
The facts that made up the case are as follows. First, the Central Bank acted as the
indenture trustee for agreed issues of the bond. These issues were declared by Colorado’s
Building Authority, which was given the...