Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 12, 2005 Decided April 19, 2005
Full case name	Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Broudo et al.
Citations	544 U.S. 336 (more) 125 S. Ct. 1627; 161 L. Ed. 2d 577; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 3478
Case history
Prior	339 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2003)
Holding
An inflated purchase price will not by itself constitute or proximately cause the relevant economic loss needed to allege and prove "loss causation."
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinion
Majority	Breyer, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
109 Stat. 747, 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(b)(4)

Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005), is a securities fraud decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, holding that an inflated purchase price will not by itself constitute or proximately cause the relevant economic loss needed to allege and prove "loss causation."