Isabel Sperber and Aline K. Halye v. Ivan F. Boesky

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that investors’ injuries were not proximately caused by defendant’s acts of insider trading and analogizing the investors to consumers who merely pay higher prices to an intimidated storekeeper
• dismissing complaint alleging violations of 1962(a) through (d) for failure to plead causation adequately
• plaintiffs were “neither the target of the racketeering enterprise nor the competitors nor the customers of the racketeer”
• limiting, on proximate cause grounds, broad-ranging RICO liability claim
• \[D]octrine of proximate cause reflects social policy decisions.\
• “Plaintiffs here were neither the target of the racketeering nor the customers of the racketeer. [Defendant] did not cheat or deceive plaintiffs in any way with regard to the particular stocks in question since they did not know he had purchased them illegally.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).