·
Case and law context
Interpretation-only case: no CASE context or instance blocks recorded in this snapshot.
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
By the time this Court first confronted the question, literally hundreds of lower court decisions had accepted “Birnbaum’s conclusion that the plaintiff class for purposes of § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 private damage actions is limited to purchasers and sellers.”
By the time this Court first confronted the question, literally hundreds of lower court decisions had accepted “Birnbaum’s conclusion that the plaintiff class for purposes of § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 private damage actions is limited to purchasers and sellers.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0071-01; Unicode character offsets [9526:9785] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83f7018d9307d78bcf6853d76642f0694134d76e9a7c8bcfde4019da647a7645.Judge-made Blue Chip limitation on the implied private damages remedy. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71, 80–81, 84 (2006), explains and applies the distinction in deciding SLUSA preclusion; its broader preclusion rule does not expand the private federal remedy. A holder or disappointed offeree cannot qualify merely because fraud coincides with someone else's transaction. Contracts to buy or sell count under the statutory definitions; an unaccepted offer alone does not. Government claims do not require this element. The statutory swap extension applies precedents to covered agreements to the same extent.
interpretation
The Blue Chip Stamps Court purported to define the scope of a private right of action under Rule 10b-5 — not to define the words “in connection with the purchase or sale.”
The Blue Chip Stamps Court purported to define the scope of a private right of action under Rule 10b-5 — not to define the words “in connection with the purchase or sale.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0071-01; Unicode character offsets [17007:17178] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83f7018d9307d78bcf6853d76642f0694134d76e9a7c8bcfde4019da647a7645.Judge-made Blue Chip limitation on the implied private damages remedy. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71, 80–81, 84 (2006), explains and applies the distinction in deciding SLUSA preclusion; its broader preclusion rule does not expand the private federal remedy. A holder or disappointed offeree cannot qualify merely because fraud coincides with someone else's transaction. Contracts to buy or sell count under the statutory definitions; an unaccepted offer alone does not. Government claims do not require this element. The statutory swap extension applies precedents to covered agreements to the same extent.
interpretation
The limitation of course had no application in Government enforcement actions brought pursuant to Rule 10b-5.
The limitation of course had no application in Government enforcement actions brought pursuant to Rule 10b-5.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_547.jsonl#/us/547/0071-01; Unicode character offsets [11717:11826] (end exclusive); SHA-256 83f7018d9307d78bcf6853d76642f0694134d76e9a7c8bcfde4019da647a7645.Judge-made Blue Chip limitation on the implied private damages remedy. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71, 80–81, 84 (2006), explains and applies the distinction in deciding SLUSA preclusion; its broader preclusion rule does not expand the private federal remedy. A holder or disappointed offeree cannot qualify merely because fraud coincides with someone else's transaction. Contracts to buy or sell count under the statutory definitions; an unaccepted offer alone does not. Government claims do not require this element. The statutory swap extension applies precedents to covered agreements to the same extent.