Connection lost
Server error
Arnold R. Rissman v. Owen Randall Rissman and Robert Dunn Glick Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A shareholder sold his stock after signing an agreement disclaiming reliance on any prior oral promises. When the company was sold for a huge profit soon after, he sued for securities fraud. The court held the non-reliance clause barred his claim.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a clear, written non-reliance clause in a securities purchase agreement can preclude a plaintiff from establishing reasonable reliance on prior oral misrepresentations, thus defeating a Rule 10b-5 claim as a matter of law.
Arnold R. Rissman v. Owen Randall Rissman and Robert Dunn Glick Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Arnold Rissman sold his one-third stake in Tiger Electronics, a closely-held family company, to his brother, Randall, for $17 million. Arnold alleged that Randall fraudulently induced the sale by orally representing he would never sell the company to a third party or take it public, leading Arnold to believe his shares would remain illiquid. During negotiations, Arnold requested that Randall include this representation in the written agreement, but Randall refused. The final stock purchase agreement, executed by both parties with advice of counsel, contained explicit non-reliance clauses. In these clauses, Arnold warranted that he had not relied on any prior oral statements or representations not set forth in the agreement. The contract also included a provision accelerating Randall’s payments to Arnold if the company were sold. Thirteen months after the transaction, Randall sold Tiger’s assets to Hasbro for $335 million. Arnold filed suit under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, seeking the additional profit he would have realized had he not sold his shares.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a written non-reliance clause in a securities purchase agreement preclude a plaintiff from establishing the element of reasonable reliance on prior, contradictory oral misrepresentations for a claim under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5?
Yes. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Arnold Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a written non-reliance clause in a securities purchase agreement preclude a plaintiff from establishing the element of reasonable reliance on prior, contradictory oral misrepresentations for a claim under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5?
Conclusion
This case establishes a strong precedent in the Seventh Circuit that sophisticated Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco l
Legal Rule
A written anti-reliance clause in a securities purchase agreement precludes any claim Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the element of reliance, which is essential Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A specific, written non-reliance clause in a stock purchase agreement precludes
