Steinhardt Group Inc. v. Citicorp
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
126 F.3d 144 (1997)
- Written by Rocco Sainato, JD
Facts
Citicorp (defendant) entered into a series of financially dubious transactions in the early 1990s, such that it began to conjure up ways in which to hide its debt. One such way was to create an investment vehicle that would hide debt by creating a series of bonds in an effort to pool defaulted mortgages. The investment vehicle in question is Bristol Oaks, L.P. Citicorp was able to convince Steinhardt Group Inc. (plaintiff) to invest in Bristol Oaks, with Steinhardt purchasing a majority interest in the partnership. As such, Steinhardt was entitled to approve Bristol Oaks’ business plans. When Bristol Oaks failed, Steinhardt brought suit against Citicorp, alleging that it had been misled by Citicorp as to the character of its investment, in violation of federal securities laws. The district court ruled in favor of Citicorp. Steinhardt then appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mansmann, Circuit Judge)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 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.
