Stark v. United States Trust Company of New York
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
445 F. Supp. 670 (1978)
- Written by Paul Neel, JD
Facts
Henry Rousseau created four trusts for the benefit of his four children and their descendants (plaintiffs). The trusts named the United States Trust Company of New York (defendant) as trustee. The trusts gave the trustee discretion to retain stocks that Rousseau had used to fund the trust, even if these investments were not diversified. The trust also provided that the trustee would not be surcharged for any losses occasioned by retaining these stocks. While Rousseau was alive, the trustee had sold stock over Rousseau’s objection, intending to diversify the portfolio. After Rousseau died, a series of events caused stock prices to fall substantially: an oil embargo, inflation, high interest rates, less discretionary spending, and Watergate. Economic analysts could not foresee these events or their effect on the stock market. Partially based on these economic forecasts, the trustee retained three stocks in which Rousseau had invested. The trustee also used its own internal economic forecasts and coding for purchasing, holding, or selling stocks to inform its decision to retain the stocks. Over three years, the portfolio containing these stocks dropped in value from $940,000 to $93,000. The beneficiaries sued the trustee for breach of care.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Weinfeld, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
