Connection lost
Server error
Basic Inc. v. Levinson 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 company falsely denied engaging in merger talks. The Supreme Court held that the materiality of such statements is fact-specific, and it endorsed the “fraud-on-the-market” theory, which presumes investor reliance on the integrity of the market price for class action purposes.
Legal Significance: This case established the standard for materiality of preliminary merger negotiations under Rule 10b-5 and formally adopted the fraud-on-the-market theory, creating a rebuttable presumption of reliance that is crucial for securities fraud class actions.
Basic Inc. v. Levinson 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
Basic Incorporated was a publicly traded company that, beginning in 1976, engaged in intermittent merger discussions with Combustion Engineering, Inc. During 1977 and 1978, in response to unusual trading activity in its stock, Basic made three public statements denying that any merger negotiations were underway or that it knew of any corporate developments that would account for the stock’s activity. In December 1978, Basic publicly announced its board had approved a tender offer from Combustion. Former Basic shareholders who sold their stock after the first public denial but before the final announcement brought a class action suit against Basic and its directors under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs alleged they were injured by selling their shares at artificially depressed prices in a market that was misled by Basic’s false statements. The district court certified the class by adopting a presumption of reliance based on the fraud-on-the-market theory but granted summary judgment for Basic, finding the misstatements immaterial as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: In a securities fraud action under Rule 10b-5, what is the standard of materiality for preliminary merger discussions, and may a court presume investor reliance based on the fraud-on-the-market theory to facilitate a class action?
Yes. The Court adopted the TSC Industries standard of materiality for Rule 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 c
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
In a securities fraud action under Rule 10b-5, what is the standard of materiality for preliminary merger discussions, and may a court presume investor reliance based on the fraud-on-the-market theory to facilitate a class action?
Conclusion
This landmark decision established a flexible, fact-based standard for materiality in the 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
Legal Rule
For a claim under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, a fact is 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
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court first addressed the standard of materiality, formally adopting the 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 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 pro
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Materiality Standard: For preliminary merger talks, materiality is a fact-specific inquiry