# Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green

> Supreme Court of the United States · March 23, 1977 · 430 U.S. 462

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426731

## Case

- **Full name:** SANTA FE INDUSTRIES, INC., Et Al. v. GREEN Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** March 23, 1977
- **Citations:** 430 U.S. 462; 97 S. Ct. 1292; 51 L. Ed. 2d 480; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 66
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Blackmun
- **Judges:** Blackmun, Burger, Marshall, Powell, Stevens, Stewart, White
- **Cited by:** 1,140 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426731

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the Court’s prior cases all “included some element of deception,” and did not “support the proposition ... that a breach of fiduciary duty by majority stockholders, without any deception, misrepresentation, or nondisclosure, violates the statute and the Rule”
- stating that “the complaint [at issue] failed to allege a material misrepresentation or material failure to disclose,” and holding that “Congress [did not] mean[] to prohibit any conduct not involving [such] manipulation or deception”
- stating that market manipulation under Section 10(b) “refers generally to practices, such as wash sales, matched order, or rigged prices, that are intended to mislead investors by artificially affecting market activity”
- holding that federal securities laws cannot be used to contend that a corporate transaction did not fetch the best price; the federal regulation at issue is instead limited to disclosures
- holding that “manipulation” under Section 10(b), “refers generally to practices, such as wash sales, matched orders, or rigged prices, that are intended to mislead investors by artificially affecting market activity”

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Blackmun,
concurring in part.
Like Mr. Justice Stevens, I refrain from joining Part IV of the Court’s opinion. I, too, regard that part as unnecessary for the decision in the instant case and, indeed, as exacerbating the concerns I expressed in my dissents in Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723, 761 (1975), and in Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S. 185, 215 (1976). I, however, join the remainder of the Court’s opinion and its judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426731. Public record. Not legal advice.