Anschutz Corp. v. Merrill Lynch & Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that no special relationship exists between a ratings agency and plaintiffs that lose money after investing in securities that the agency rated favorably absent allegations of direct contract between the agency and plaintiffs
• explaining that New York law strictly limits negligent misrepresentation claims to “situations involving actual privity of contract between the parties or a relationship so close as to approach that of privity” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that negligent misrepresentation requires that “the defendant made a false representation”
• noting that plaintiff plaintiffs are entitled to default judgment, an assessment of must establish defendant's “duty, as a result of a special damages and final judgment shall wait until plaintiffs’ claims relationship, to give correct information” (emphasis added)
• discussing the New York law requirement for a “special” or “privity-like” relationship
• providing a more comprehensive discussion of auction rate securities

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).