AND · 15usc78j:purchaser-seller
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.
Exact element source
in connection with the purchase or saleSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec78j; Unicode character offsets [672:711] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8ceaded2a57e5b49e22a4766033c8899ebfd730667700a031b8db7f80ea91e32.Routes and case patterns
No routes recorded for this element.
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|
Court interpretations
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.”
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit — 547 U.S. 71 · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 (15usc78j: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
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.”
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit — 547 U.S. 71 · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 (15usc78j: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
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.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit — 547 U.S. 71 · Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 (15usc78j: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
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.