Court Opinion

ID: 9842029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 20:12:26.592341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:13.488477
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Brennan,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion. The Court of Appeals implied a cause of action for damages under § 17 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. § 78q (a), in favor of respondents, who purport to represent customers of a bankrupt brokerage firm, against petitioner accounting firm, which allegedly injured those customers by improperly preparing and certifying the reports on the brokerage firm required by § 17 (a) and the rules promulgated thereunder. Under the tests established in our prior cases, no cause of action should be implied for respondents under § 17 (a). Although analyses of the several factors outlined in Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S. 66 (1975), may often overlap, I agree that when, as here, a statute clearly *580does not “create a federal right in favor of the plaintiff,” id., at 78, i. e., when the plaintiff is not “ 'one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted/ ” ibid., quoting Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U. S. 33, 39 (1916), and when there is also in the legislative history no “indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, ... to create such a remedy,” 422 U. S., at 78, the remaining two Cort factors cannot by themselves be a basis for implying a right of action.