Sale v. Snyder

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the contractual language, “As your broker/dealer, we will . . . [d]etermine the suitability of any recommendations and investment advice,” could serve as basis for breach claim
• PRUSA may be applied “more broadly to preclude plaintiffs from bringing claims that sound in securities fraud, even when those claims are brought pursuant to a common law theory”
• plaintiffs had standing because “if defendants’ systematic conduct is tortious with respect to one fund, it is also tortious with respect to another fund, and does not depend on the individualized circumstances of each Fund”
• “[C]ourts should be wary of artful pleading, and regardless of a plaintiff's characterization of a claim as based on a theory other than falsity, courts must examine whether fraud is nonetheless an essential part of the plaintiff's theory.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).