Ettinger v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
835 F.2d 1031 (1987)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
In mid-1984, Jean Ettinger (plaintiff) purchased certain debt securities from Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (Merrill Lynch) (defendant) that Merrill Lynch denominated as Treasury investment growth receipts (TIGRs). TIGRs were zero-coupon Treasury bonds for which no interest was paid prior to maturity. Upon the maturity date, a one-time payment was made encompassing both the principal and all accrued interest. TIGRs were sold at discounts from their face values. TIGRs were proprietary investment vehicles sold by Merrill Lynch, which served as the market maker for these securities. Several months after Ettinger purchased the TIGRs, Ettinger filed a lawsuit against Merrill Lynch in federal district court. Ettinger claimed that Merrill Lynch charged excessive markups on the TIGRs and failed to disclose such markups in violation of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In response, Merrill Lynch moved for summary judgment and claimed that it complied with Rule 10b-10 and that its compliance with Rule 10b-10 served as a safe harbor against liability under Rule 10b-5. The district court agreed with Merrill Lynch and granted Merrill Lynch’s motion for summary judgment. Ettinger appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Seitz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.