October Term 2004 · Docket 03-932

Does a stock price drop prove securities fraud loss?

Investors claim Dura Pharmaceuticals misled the market. The company argues they suffered no loss until they sold shares.

Official caption
Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    William Sullivan argued that the case presents two different views of necessary loss.

    Michael Hungar argued that buying at an inflated price causes no immediate loss.

    Justice Breyer asked for a list of problems with the simple theory.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests how courts measure financial harm in securities fraud. The dispute centers on the timing of that harm.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 12, 2005.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Dura Pharmaceuticals wants the Court to require proof of actual sale at a lower price.

Broudo wants the Court to accept a stock price drop as proof of loss.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Dura Pharmaceuticals argues that holding stock at an inflated price is not a loss.

Broudo argues that buying stock at an inflated price is an immediate loss.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if the rule looks to market value rather than explicit representations.

Justice Kennedy asked what problems the trial court would face with the lower court opinion.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines how investors prove financial harm. It sets the standard for measuring loss in market-wide fraud claims.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON