DOCSLIB.ORG

Loss Causation Outside the Securities Context

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Loss Causation Outside the Securities Context G THE B IN EN V C R H E S A N 8 8 D 8 B 1 AR SINCE Web address: http://www.nylj.com VOLUME 238—nO. 81 THURSDAY, october 25, 2007 SECOND CIRCUIT REVIEW BY MARTIN FLUMENBAUM AND BRAD S. KARP Loss Causation Outside the Securities Context n Merrill Lynch & Co. v. Allegheny Energy, Moreover, Allegheny alleged that Merrill failed Inc.,1 a decision of potentially great to disclose material facts about GEM’s Chief significance, the U.S. Court of Appeals Executive Officer, Dan Gordon. Mr. Gordon Ifor the Second Circuit distinguished “loss had embezzled $43 million from Merrill and causation” in the context of securities fraud from was later convicted and jailed for his conduct. “proximate cause” in the context of common Although there was no direct evidence that law fraud. Merrill’s officers knew of the embezzlement Although acknowledging that the two concepts prior to Allegheny’s acquisition of GEM, some are closely related, the court refused to extend the officials within Merrill allegedly were aware that prodefendant doctrine of loss causation set forth Martin Flumenbaum Brad S. Karp Mr. Gordon had intentionally evaded Merrill’s by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dura2 beyond the internal controls on credit and knew that he had securities fraud context. lied about the evasion. After the sale of GEM Consequently, the court ruled that the was complete, Mr. Gordon admitted that he however, refused to honor Merrill’s sell-back traditional doctrine of “proximate cause” must knowingly had given Allegheny false financial option, questioning the accuracy of representations be used by district courts in evaluating common information about GEM. that Merrill allegedly had made during the earlier law fraud damages claims. The district court ruled in favor of Merrill in negotiations for Allegheny’s purchase of GEM. this dispute, awarding $115 million to Merrill for Merrill sued to enforce its sell-back option, and its two-percent stake in Supply and finding that Background and Procedural History Allegheny filed counterclaims for fraudulent Allegheny had failed to prove its counterclaims. The dispute in Allegheny Energy arose from inducement and breach of warranty. The district court found that Allegheny was Allegheny Energy’s January 2001 acquisition Allegheny’s counterclaims turned on Merrill’s “never in the dark” about the Williams contract of Global Energy Markets (GEM), an energy- alleged representations about GEM’s finances in or the September and October financial reports,3 commodities trading business. Upon purchasing fall 2000, just before Allegheny’s acquisition of and, based on the information it received, GEM from Merrill Lynch, Allegheny created a GEM and the subsequent formation of Supply. Allegheny “could visualize the wild fluctuations” wholly owned subsidiary called Allegheny Energy Merrill allegedly represented that it had recognized and should have “realized the incredible difficulty Supply Co. LLC (Supply), which assumed all $32 million in revenues from a particular GEM in nailing down any sort of concrete value” for the of GEM’s assets. Under the terms of the deal, contract (the “Williams contract”) in October Williams contract.4 Allegheny paid $490 million for GEM and gave 2000, even though an expert hired by Merrill Merrill a two-percent interest in Supply. The deal supposedly calculated that Merrill had suffered a also permitted Merrill to sell back this interest $10.5 million loss from the Williams contract in Second Circuit Decision for an agreed price of $115 million, if Allegheny the same month. The September 2000 financial • Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Before failed to contribute certain assets to Supply. report that Merrill provided to Allegheny allegedly addressing the merits, the Second Circuit, in a After the stock market dropped in fall 2001, reported inflated revenues and income from the decision written by Judge Richard J. Cardamone Allegheny failed to contribute the assets required Williams contract. In addition to these asserted and joined by Judges John Walker and Reena by the agreement, so Merrill exercised its option inaccuracies, Allegheny complained that the Raggi, first addressed whether the district court’s to sell back its interest in Supply. Allegheny, financial reports it received from Merrill were joinder of a nondiverse party (Supply) destroyed not prepared by Merrill’s finance department diversity or whether the district court appropriately and differed significantly from the financial exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the numbers represented in Merrill’s own books. claims of that party. Although Supply and Merrill According to Allegheny, when Merrill realized were both Delaware citizens, the district court Martin Flumenbaum and Brad S. Karp are the discrepancies between the fall financial reports had joined Supply’s claims earlier in the dispute, members of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison 5 LLP. They specialize in complex commercial litigation and its own internal numbers, it partially corrected finding that Supply was a necessary party. The and white-collar criminal defense matters. Larry A. them, but the reports allegedly still overstated Second Circuit found the district court’s joinder Coury, a litigation associate at the firm, assisted in revenues derived from sources other than the to be inappropriate, relying on the intervening the preparation of this column. Williams contract. Supreme Court decision in Exxon Mobil Corp. NEW YorK Law JOURNAL THURSDAY, october 25, 2007 6 v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., and holding that a not foreclose it from proving reliance on Merrill’s Breach of Warranty “failure of diversity…contaminates the action, material misrepresentations, on remand. so to speak, and takes away any justification for • Fraudulent Inducement: Proximate Finally, the court determined that Allegheny’s providing a federal forum.”7 Despite this failure Cause. Even if Allegheny could prove justifiable fraudulent inducement claim was not duplicative of diversity and apparent lack of jurisdiction, reliance on remand, it still must demonstrate that of its breach of warranty claim. The court the Court retroactively dismissed Supply from Merrill’s misrepresentations caused its damages. explained that breach-of-contract claims generally the case, finding that Allegheny had implicitly The district court relied heavily on securities involve promises of prospective performance, consented to Supply’s characterization as a fraud cases in evaluating the proximate cause while fraudulent inducement claims generally dispensable party and noting that “the retroactive of Allegheny’s alleged damages. In particular, involve misstatements and omissions of present absence of Supply…is not prejudicial to Supply, the district court noted that Dura and other facts. Notwithstanding this distinction, the court defendant or plaintiff.”8 cases “have repeatedly shown that overpayment held that a breach of contractual warranties does • Fraudulent Inducement: Reliance on a alone does not prove causation and a claimant not necessarily require prospective performance Misrepresented Material Fact. The court next to collect on such a theory must prove that the and may simultaneously represent a misstatement addressed the merits of Allegheny’s counterclaims breach or misrepresentation resulted in an actual or omission of present facts. The court also held for fraudulent inducement and breach of injury or loss not attributable to other factors.”16 that the required proof of proximate cause is the warranty. The court explained that Allegheny The district court expressly rejected Allegheny’s same for the fraudulent inducement and breach must prove that Merrill “knowingly or recklessly argument that Dura is distinguishable because it of warranty claims. misrepresented a material fact, intending to induce involved a securities fraud claim in connection [Allegheny’s] reliance, and that [Allegheny] relied with a publicly traded company. The district court Conclusion on the misrepresentation and suffered damages found that inasmuch as Allegheny received a The Second Circuit’s holding in Allegheny 9 as a result.” In addition, because Allegheny was substantial benefit from GEM in the year following Energy, distinguishing the requirement to prove alleging fraud by omission, the court ruled that the acquisition and may not have overpaid as a “loss causation” in securities fraud cases from it must prove that Merrill “had a duty to disclose result, Allegheny consequently failed to prove the requirement to prove proximate cause in 10 the concealed fact.” loss causation under Dura. common-law fraud cases, may be quite significant. The contract contained two warranties that The Second Circuit rejected the district The business community is closely monitoring “imposed a duty on Merrill Lynch to provide court’s reasoning, and ruled that Dura was not how this case plays out on remand. accurate and adequate facts and entitled Allegheny controlling and that Allegheny could pursue its to rely on them without further investigation damages claim. The court explained that “Dura’s •••••••••••••• •••••••••••••• or sleuthing.”11 The court noted that New York conclusion that overpayment alone cannot prove • law allows a party to rely on misrepresentations loss causation, as the district court incorrectly if they “relate to matters peculiarly within the believed, is based on the tailored application of 1. No. 05-7689-HB, —F.3d—, 2007 WL 2458411 (2d Cir. Aug. 31, 2007). other party’s knowledge.”12 In this case, the court these principles
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 15.00 Proximate Cause
    15.00 PROXIMATE CAUSE 15.01 Proximate Cause--Definition When I use the expression “proximate cause,” I mean a cause that, in the natural or ordinary course of events, produced the plaintiff's injury. [It need not be the only cause, nor the last or nearest cause. It is sufficient if it combines with another cause resulting in the injury.] Instruction and Comment revised September 2009. Notes on Use This instruction in its entirety should be used when there is evidence of a concurring or contributing cause to the injury or death. In cases where there is no evidence that the conduct of any person other than a single defendant was a concurring or contributing cause, the short version without the bracketed material may be used. Comment *** The Committee modified this instruction in 2007 with the intent of making it more comprehensible and conversational. That modification used the word “and” in the first sentence instead of “or.” “Or” is a more accurate statement of the law and more consistent with the predecessor instruction and case law. “That” is preferred usage in place of “which.” In negligence actions and in other cases which involve the violation of statutes and ordinances, the injuries, death or loss of support must have been caused by the negligence or particular statutory violation alleged in the complaint. The jury is informed that one of the elements of the plaintiff's case is that the conduct of the defendant is a proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages or injuries. See IPI B21.02. This instruction, defining proximate cause, should accompany those in which the phrase “proximate cause” is used, e.g., IPI 11.01 and IPI B21.02.
    [Show full text]
  • Without Causation, Fraud and Subsequent Loss Are Not Adequate Grounds for Recovery Tom O'connor
    Loyola Consumer Law Review Volume 9 | Issue 4 Article 4 1997 Without Causation, Fraud and Subsequent Loss are Not Adequate Grounds for Recovery Tom O'Connor Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr Part of the Consumer Protection Law Commons Recommended Citation Tom O'Connor Without Causation, Fraud and Subsequent Loss are Not Adequate Grounds for Recovery, 9 Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 309 (1997). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr/vol9/iss4/4 This Recent Case is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola Consumer Law Review by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECENT CA SES Without Causation, Fraud and Subsequent Loss Are Not Adequate Grounds for Recovery by Tom O'Connor In Mark Law v. Medco Research September 1, 1992 should have a new drug was "on track." These Inc., 113 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 1997), provided "storm warnings" to articles reported that: (1) Defen- Mark Law ("Plaintiffs") filed a class investors and satisfied the notice dants' supplier of pharmaceuticals, action suit for similarly situated requirement. These articles called Fujisawa, was suing the company investors in Medco Research Inc. Defendants an "overpriced hype which sold Fujisawa the production ("Defendants"), claiming Defen- job" whose stock was bought by facilities for Defendants' drug, and dants defrauded their investors. The "idiots." In reviewing this argu- (2) Fujisawa's production facility United States Court of Appeals for ment, the court noted that these had quality and regulatory problems the Seventh Circuit dismissed the articles were not given credence by in producing a number of its drugs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: an Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1987 The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: An Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines Alan O. Sykes Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Alan O. Sykes, "The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: An Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines," 101 Harvard Law Review 563 (1987). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VOLUME 101 JANUARY 1988 NUMBER 3 HARVARD LAW REVIEW1 ARTICLES THE BOUNDARIES OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT RULE AND RELATED LEGAL DOCTRINES Alan 0. Sykes* 441TICARIOUS liability" may be defined as the imposition of lia- V bility upon one party for a wrong committed by another party.1 One of its most common forms is the imposition of liability on an employer for the wrong of an employee or agent. The imposition of vicarious liability usually depends in part upon the nature of the activity in which the wrong arises. For example, if an employee (or "servant") commits a tort within the ordinary course of business, the employer (or "master") normally incurs vicarious lia- bility under principles of respondeat superior. If the tort arises outside the "scope of employment," however, the employer does not incur liability, absent special circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law--Conspiracy and the Felony Murder Doctrine in Kentucky J
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 29 | Issue 1 Article 14 1940 Criminal Law--Conspiracy and the Felony Murder Doctrine in Kentucky J. Wirt Turner Jr. University of Kentucky Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Turner, J. Wirt Jr. (1940) "Criminal Law--Conspiracy and the Felony Murder Doctrine in Kentucky," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 29 : Iss. 1 , Article 14. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol29/iss1/14 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. KENTUCKY LAw JOURNAL In conclusion, it is submitted that the felony murder doctrine in Kentucky is based on the same principles as the negligent murder doctrine, since to convict a defendant of murder for a death occuring during the commission of a felony there must first be a felony dangerous to life and, secondly, the death of the victim must be the necessary or natural consequence of the felony. J. GRiANVILLE CLARK CRIMINAL LAW-CONSPIRACY AND THE FELONY MURDER DOCTRINE IN KENTUCKY* Defendant was indicted jointly with two others for the crime of wilful murder by setting fire to a house and burning a child to death. The evidence showed that defendant was not near enough to aid and abet in the crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Proximate Cause Risks That Make Defendant Negligent Other Risks
    Negligence – Prima Facie Case • D owed P a Legal Duty • Breach of Duty • Actual Damages • Factual Cause • Proximate Cause Risks that Make Defendant Negligent Other Risks A ? B ? Harm ? D ? C Determining Breach of Duty 1) Would reasonable person have foreseen a risk of harm [to someone]? – If no, then not negligent – If yes, move on to #2 2) Would reasonable person have taken steps to avoid or minimize the risk (identified in #1)? – If no, then not negligent – If yes, then negligent Element Modern Framework (Thompson) Palsgraff (Cardozo) D owes everyone, including P, a D owes P a duty only if: D’s Duty duty of ordinary care conduct creates an unreasonable, foreseeable risk to P • D’s conduct creates a reasonably • D failed to act as a reasonable Breach of foreseeable risk of harm and prudent person would • Reasonable and prudent person Duty would seek to minimize or eliminate this risk • D failed to do so Proximate • D’s conduct creates a N/A Cause foreseeable risk to P • A reasonable and prudent person would seek to minimize or eliminate the risk to P Proximate Cause – Scope of Risk Harm w/in scope of risk if: Reasonable person in similar circumstances would have 1) foreseen harm or risk (a) of same general type, and (b) to the general class of persons that includes the P; and 2) Taken greater precautions to avoid it than D took Multifactor Test (Palsgraf dissent) Proximate cause determined by balancing multiple factors: • Foreseeability of harm to P • Rough sense justice • D’s conduct a substantial factor in causing P’s harm • Natural
    [Show full text]
  • Vicarious Liability and Liability for the Actions of Others II
    InDret Vicarious Liability and Liability for the Actions of Others II Pablo Salvador Coderch Professor of Law Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona (Spain) [email protected] Carlos Ignacio Gómez Ligüerre Assistant Professor of Law Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona (Spain) [email protected] July 2002 www.indret.com InDret 03/2002 Pablo Salvador and Carlos Gómez Summary 1. Vicarious liability or liability for the actions of others as a mean of overcoming the principle of individual liability 2. Civil and Criminal Rules governing Civil liability for the actions of others 2.1. Reasons for the existence of two sets of rules that are almost identical, one in section 1903 of the Civil Code and the other in section 120 of the Criminal Code 2.2. Liability due to personal dependency: parents and tutors 2.3. Liability stemming from professional dependency: employers and school owners and teachers a) Relationship of Dependency b) Performance of their liabilities and services c) Reimbursement in favor of the principal 3. From Dependency to Control 4. Bibliography 2 InDret 03/2002 Pablo Salvador and Carlos Gómez Abstract The two traditional branches that regulate civil liability in Spain are the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 (sections 1902, 1903 and 1904) and the Spanish Criminal Code of 1995 (section 120), they determine the harm caused by actions or omissions that are neither crimes nor misdemeanors and those deemed to be, respectively. This work analyzes vicarious liability or liability for the actions of others as one of the legal mechanisms anticipated to overcome civil liability once it has been determined that the principle of individual liability –due to negligence or strict liability– is impractical given the limited solvency of the majority of individuals responsible for a damage.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Proximate Cause
    Chapter 2 Proximate Cause Introduction Causation is one of the most difficult concepts occurred but for the defendant' s for many law students to master. This is perhaps conduct? because most of the causation concept is intuitively — and — obvious. What is difficult is not the largely intuitive and obvious part, but the relatively rare (b) Legal cause: was the defendant' s case in which our intuitive faculties fail us. For conduct closely enough related to example, when two cars collide in an intersection, the plaintiff's injury to make it and one of the cars was driven at excessive speed fair to hold him liable? through a red light, it is not difficult for us to Each of these is taken up in turn, after we have assign the cause of the accident to speeding and looked at a California case that abandoned the failure to yield. Although the issue of causation is traditional approach. technically part of the plaintiff' s burden of proof, in practice that issue will occupy almost none of the jury's time in deliberation. MITCHELL v. GONZALEZ The difficulty arises where we are uncertain about what caused a particular accident, or where 54 Cal. 3d 1041, 1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 913, 819 P.2d we are certain of one cause, but uncertain with 872 (1991) respect to another. For example, if an asbestos LUCAS, Chief Justice worker/smoker dies of lung cancer, what must we know about the relationship between lung cancer In this case we decide whether BAJI No. and smoking or between lung cancer and asbestos 3.75,1 the so-called proximate cause instruction, before we can say that one or the other (or both) which contains a "but for" test of cause in fact, caused his lung cancer? Is it enough to note that should continue to be given in this state, or smokers have a significantly higher rate of lung whether it should be disapproved in favor of BAJI cancer than nonsmokers? What about the fact that No.
    [Show full text]
  • Essay Questions and Selected Answers October 2017
    California First-Year Law Students’ Examination Essay Questions and Selected Answers October 2017 The State Bar of California Committee of Bar Examiners / Office of Admissions 180 Howard Street • San Francisco, CA 94105-1639 • (415) 538-2300 845 South Figueroa Street • Los Angeles, CA 90017-2515 • (213) 765-1500 ESSAY QUESTIONS AND SELECTED ANSWERS OCTOBER 2017 CALIFORNIA FIRST-YEAR LAW STUDENTS’ EXAMINATION This publication contains the four essay questions from the October 2017 California First-Year Law Students’ Examination and two selected answers for each question. The answers were assigned high grades and were written by applicants who passed the examination. The answers were produced as submitted by the applicant, except that minor corrections in spelling and punctuation were made for ease in reading. They are reproduced here with the consent of the authors. Question Number Subject 1. Torts 2. Criminal Law 3. Contracts 4. Torts October 2017 ESSAY QUESTIONS California First-Year Law Students' Examination Answer all 4 questions. Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts in the question, to tell the difference between material facts and immaterial facts, and to discern the points of law and fact upon which the case turns. Your answer should show that you know and understand the pertinent principles and theories of law, their qualifications and limitations, and their relationships to each other. Your answer should evidence your ability to apply the law to the given facts and to reason in a logical, lawyer-like manner from the premises you adopt to a sound conclusion. Do not merely show that you remember legal principles.
    [Show full text]
  • Dressler Criminal Law Outline
    DRESSLER CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE I. INTRODUCTORY POINTS A. Sources of Criminal Law. 1. Common Law. 2. Statutes Derived from Common Law. 3. Model Penal Code. 4. (Bill of Rights) B. Criminal Law v. Civil Law 1. Criminal a. Defendant is punished (incarcerated) b. The criminal conviction itself says defendant is a moral wrongdoer. It is a condemnation by the community/ “a morality play.” → (Moral blameworthiness) • Usually about things you are not supposed to do as opposed to things you must do • 2. Civil a. Defendant pays victim. (compensation) b. Defendant is not morally stigmatized. (tort claims) C. Theories of Punishment. 1. Retributivism “Is it more about desert” a. People should get what they deserve. b. Humans have free will. If they choose to do wrong, it is appropriate to punish them. c. Looks backwards. Only punishes to the extent of the wrongdoing. d. Justice for the victim • The moral desert of an offender is a sufficient reason to punish him or her which is a necessary condition of punishment • Wouldn’t want to punish someone mentally ill bc they are not morally culpable • Rests on moral culpability 2. Utilitarianism – “What good does it do” • Focuses on what punishing that particular person accomplishes a. All forms of pain are bad. Punishment is not good, but neither is crime. Punishment is proper if imposition of pain will reduce the likelihood of future crimes. b. Punishment is justified in so far as it produces some net social benefit. Forward Looking c. Forms of utilitarianism. i. General deterrence: ● convince the general community to avoid criminal conduct in the future ii.
    [Show full text]
  • Positive Externalities and the Economics of Proximate Cause Israel Gilead Hebrew University of Jerusalem
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 74 | Issue 3 Article 6 Summer 6-1-2017 Positive Externalities and the Economics of Proximate Cause Israel Gilead Hebrew University of Jerusalem Michael D. Green Wake Forest University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Israel Gilead and Michael D. Green, Positive Externalities and the Economics of Proximate Cause, 74 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1517 (2017), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol74/iss3/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Positive Externalities and the Economics of Proximate Cause Israel Gilead & Michael D. Green* Table of Contents I. Introduction ...................................................................1518 II. Why is it Efficient to Exclude Harms from the Scope of Liability? ..........................................................1527 III. The Exclusion of Foreseeable Reasonable Risks ...........1530 A. When is a Risk “Reasonable”? .................................1531 B. The “Correlation Problem” ......................................1532 C. The Efficiency of Excluding Reasonable Risks from the Scope of Liability ......................................1535 D. Illustrations .............................................................1539 1. Loaded Gun and Injured Toe .............................1539 2. Landowner Fails to Warn Not to Swim in a Polluted Pond ..................................................1541 3. A Cholesterol-Reducing Drug ............................1542 4. An Overview of the Illustrations .......................1545 IV. Responding to the Critique of HWTRS for Excluding Foreseeable Harms .......................................1546 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Vicarious Criminal Liability and the Constitutional Dimensions of Pinkerton Alex Kreit [email protected]
    American University Law Review Volume 57 | Issue 3 Article 2 2008 Vicarious Criminal Liability and the Constitutional Dimensions of Pinkerton Alex Kreit [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Kreit, Alex. “Vicarious Criminal Liability and the Constitutional Dimensions of Pinkerton.” American University Law Review 57, no.3 (February, 2008): 585-639. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Vicarious Criminal Liability and the Constitutional Dimensions of Pinkerton Abstract This article considers what limits the constitution places on holding someone criminally liable for another's conduct. While vicarious criminal liability is often criticized, there is no doubt that it is constitutionally permissible as a general matter. Under the long-standing felony murder doctrine, for example, if A and B rob a bank and B shoots and kills a security guard, A can be held criminally liable for the murder. What if, however, A was not involved in the robbery but instead had a completely separate conspiracy with B to distribute cocaine? What relationship, if any, does the constitution require between A's conduct and B's crimes in order to hold A liable for them? It is clear A could not be punished for B's crimes simply because they are friends.
    [Show full text]
  • § 3.2 Causation: the Requirements for Holding an Actor Accountable for a Result 125
    122 Chapter 3. Objective Requirements of an Offense a circumstance, purpose requires only that one the same set out for the 10 In other req[uir·ement of purpose req:uin:ment of knowledge. classified as results, but Thus, if "obstructs" is inter~ § 3.2 Causation: The Requirements for Holding an for example, the state need ouly Actor Accountable for a Result satisfy the special requirements of obstruction would not have occurred § 3.2.1 Requirements of Causation: Factual and Proximate Cause if "obstructs" is viewed as embodying Factual ("but-for") cause: scientific inquiry result element, then the state must prove Alternative sufficient-cause test responsible for bringing about a resulting Proximate (legal) cause: normative inquiry Proximity examples Proposed definitions seem consistent with the spirit and Foreseeability as factor in determining proximate cause Penal Code scheme. Define "conduct" elements Vagueness in the proximate-cause standard actual physical acts of the actor. Define all char- § 3.2.2 Causing Another Person to Cause a Result to be separate "circumsta ements; similarly, Intervening actor's volitional act breaks chain by the conduct should be de separate "result" Influencing intervening actor's exercise of volition "result" elements to be any e in the surrounding Continuum of volition brought about by the offend nduct, that the offense Causing another's crime as form of complicity occur. As with conduct, define aracteristics of a result to § 3.2.3 Multiple Causes "circumstance" dements. 13 Imputing co-criminal's causal conduct mustration: "obstructing an offense of "obstructing lie highway" would essentially "Combined effect" analysis a highway" proof that the actor "engage conduct that caused the obstruc- Dangers of "combined effect" of a public highway." "Obst on" would be a result element; the Serial vs.
    [Show full text]