AND · 15usc78j:economic-loss
The private remedy requires economic loss, unlike the core SEC violation. Mere payment of an inflated purchase price does not itself establish the loss identified in Dura.
Exact element source
any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivanceSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec78j; Unicode character offsets [907:958] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8ceaded2a57e5b49e22a4766033c8899ebfd730667700a031b8db7f80ea91e32.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| purchase-inflation/spray-device | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/544/0336-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 — not |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /us/544/0336-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 | Actual economic loss in private damages action | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; count: spray-device claim; subject: count=spray-device claim Inflation is plaintiffs' asserted injury, hence supports polarity for that allegation; the Court rejects its legal sufficiency. The temporary price drop followed by recovery is counterevidence, not an allegation of lasting loss. | purchase-inflation/spray-device | (6) About eight months later (in November 1998), Dura announced that the FDA would not approve Dura’s new asthmatic spray device. Id., at 110a.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0336-01; Unicode character offsets [2000:2143] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3babb1f78e697e8ce54ae719d486a42c4f4c9380530b739819d197987015075.(7) The next day Dura’s share price temporarily fell but almost fully recovered within one week. Id., at 156a.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0336-01; Unicode character offsets [2144:2254] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3babb1f78e697e8ce54ae719d486a42c4f4c9380530b739819d197987015075.Most importantly, the complaint says the following (and nothing significantly more than the following) about economic losses attributable to the spray device misstatement: “In reliance on the integrity of the market, [the plaintiffs] . . . paid artificially inflated prices for Dura securities” and the plaintiffs suffered “damagefs]” thereby. Id., at 139a (emphasis added).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0336-01; Unicode character offsets [2255:2629] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3babb1f78e697e8ce54ae719d486a42c4f4c9380530b739819d197987015075.Normally, in cases such as this one (i. e., fraud-on-the-market cases), an inflated purchase price will not itself constitute or proximately cause the relevant economic loss.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0336-01; Unicode character offsets [6860:7034] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3babb1f78e697e8ce54ae719d486a42c4f4c9380530b739819d197987015075.For reasons set forth in Part II-A, supra, however, the “artificially inflated purchase price” is not itself a relevant economic loss.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0336-01; Unicode character offsets [16499:16633] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3babb1f78e697e8ce54ae719d486a42c4f4c9380530b739819d197987015075. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
Normally, in cases such as this one (i. e., fraud-on-the-market cases), an inflated purchase price will not itself constitute or proximately cause the relevant economic loss.
/us/544/0336-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
Normally, in cases such as this one (i. e., fraud-on-the-market cases), an inflated purchase price will not itself constitute or proximately cause the relevant economic loss.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_544.jsonl#/us/544/0336-01; Unicode character offsets [6860:7034] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d3babb1f78e697e8ce54ae719d486a42c4f4c9380530b739819d197987015075.The private remedy requires economic loss, unlike the core SEC violation. Mere payment of an inflated purchase price does not itself establish the loss identified in Dura.