CASE 3In re Lehman Bros. Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation (2011) involved a
question of whetherrating agencies that helped select a pool of mortgages for a
mortgage-backed security were “underwriters” under the 1933 Act or “controlling
persons” under section 15 of the 1933 Act. How did the court rule?
a. The court ruled that the proof established that the rating agencies were both
underwriters and controlling persons under the 1933 Act.
b. The court ruled that the proof failed to establish that the rating agencies were either
underwriters or controlling persons under the 1933 Act.
c. The court ruled that the proof established that the rating agencies were underwriters
under the 1933 Act but that the proof failed to establish that the rating agencies were
controlling persons under the 1933 Act.
d. The court ruled that the proof established that the rating agencies were controlling
persons under the 1933 Act but that the proof failed to establish that the rating agencies
were underwriters under the 1933 Act.
Answer:
Fact Pattern 7-1
Prudence offered to sell her car to Danny for $3,000. Danny was not sure what to do, so
he asked Prudence if she would hold the offer open for him for one week for $50.
Prudence said sure, and the parties signed a contract to the effect that Prudence would
hold the car. A few hours later, Bobby unexpectedly offered Prudence $3,500 for the
car, and Prudence sold it to him on the spot. Danny decided to buy the car, but when he
came by to pick it up the next day, it was gone. Prudence gave Danny his $50 back
telling him that was her only obligation and that if he had any complaints, he could take
it up with Bobby. Danny found a similar car the next week for $3,500 and purchased it.