Basic Inc. v. Levinson
- Decided
- March 7, 1988
- Docket
- 86-279
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,007 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that reliance establishes “the requisite causal connection between a defendant’s misrepresentation and a plaintiffs injury” — Romesh Japra, M.D., F.A.C.C., Inc. v. Apte (In Re Apte) (1995)
- holding that plaintiff could presume reliance and noting Rule 10b-5 actions add to the protection of common law — Minpeco, S.A. v. Hunt (1989)
- recognizing that such individualized proof of reliance effectively makes it impossible to proceed as a class, because "individual issues then would ... overwhelm[] the common ones" — Desai v. Deutsche Bank Securities Ltd. (2009)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to apply the materiality requirement of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act), 48 Stat. 881, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78a et seq., and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Rule 10b-5, 17 CPR § 240.10b-5 (1987), promulgated thereunder, in the context of preliminary corporate merger discussions. We must also determine whether a person who traded a corporation’s shares on a securities exchange after the issuance of a materially misleading statement by the corporation may invoke a rebut-table presumption that, in trading, he relied on the integrity of the price set by the market.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.