In re Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
609 F.Supp.2d 304 (2009)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
See also, Thomas H. Lee Equity Fund V, L.P. v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, 612 F.Supp.2d 267 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Refco, Inc. (defendant), an international provider of brokerage and clearing services, extended credit to customers so that they could make larger securities trades. When Refco failed to adequately check customers’ creditworthiness, investors began to default on the loans and Refco suffered substantial losses as a result. Instead of disclosing the losses, Refco hid them in a subsidiary entity which made loans to itself through third parties. These were referred to as “round-trip loans.” Refco’s outside counsel, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP (Mayer Brown) (defendant), participated in 17 round-trip loans by drafting legal documents, explaining transaction details to promising third-party participants, and negotiating the loans. Subsequently, the company’s uncollectible debt became publicly known. Investors lost millions of dollars. A class action group of investors (collectively, plaintiffs) filed suit in federal district court against Mayer Brown alleging violations of § 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act) and associated federal securities laws. Mayer Brown moved to dismiss all claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lynch, 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.