Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- 10b–5 (1)
- Appraisal Remedy (1)
- Circuit split (1)
- Class actions (1)
- Class certification (1)
-
- Collusive settlements (1)
- Corporate Law (1)
- Corporate Valuation Litigation (1)
- Corporate defendants (1)
- Corporate governance (1)
- Corporation defendant (1)
- Due process (1)
- Exit Theory (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Heightened standard (1)
- History and purpose of the PSLRA (1)
- Individual suit (1)
- Insider Trading (1)
- Judicial Appraisal (1)
- Judicial Discretion (1)
- Litigation gatekeepers (1)
- Merger objection litigation (1)
- Non-class (1)
- PSLRA (1)
- Plaintiff’s lawyers (1)
- Pleading scienter (1)
- Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (1)
- Rule 10b-5 (1)
- Rule 23 (1)
- Securities Exchange Act (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Business
Speech Without Speakers: Eliminating Artificial Barriers To Pleading Corporate Scienter In Securities Fraud Claims, Jennifer Ligansky
Speech Without Speakers: Eliminating Artificial Barriers To Pleading Corporate Scienter In Securities Fraud Claims, Jennifer Ligansky
Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law
To successfully plead securities fraud claims under Rule 10b–5, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) requires that plaintiff-investors raise a “strong inference” that the defendant acted with scienter when issuing a false statement. But pleading scienter presents a challenging issue when the defendant is not a person, but an entity. When the defendant is a corporation, U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have adopted different approaches for determining whether the plaintiff has pleaded a strong inference of scienter. Some circuits hold that plaintiffs can raise a strong inference of corporate scienter only if the complaint identifies a speaker who knew …
The Problem With The “Non-Class” Class: An Urgent Call For Improved Gatekeepers In Merger Objection Litigation, Josh Molder
The Problem With The “Non-Class” Class: An Urgent Call For Improved Gatekeepers In Merger Objection Litigation, Josh Molder
Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law
Until recently, class actions dominated merger objection litigation. However, plaintiff’s lawyers have constructed a “non-class” class where an individual suit can benefit from the leverage of a certified class without ever meeting the stringent class certification requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23. This new development has initiated a shift in merger objection litigation where plaintiffs are increasingly filing individual suits instead of class actions. However, this shift has left shareholders vulnerable to collusive settlements because plaintiff’s attorneys have significant control over these suits and a strong incentive to settle quickly for a substantial fee. Additionally, corporate defendants are …
The Exit Theory Of Judicial Appraisal, William J. Carney, Keith Sharfman
The Exit Theory Of Judicial Appraisal, William J. Carney, Keith Sharfman
Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law
For many years, we and other commentators have observed the problem with allowing judges wide discretion to fashion appraisal awards to dissenting shareholders based on widely divergent, expert valuation evidence submitted by the litigating parties. The results of this discretionary approach to valuation have been to make appraisal litigation less predictable and therefore more costly and likely. While this has been beneficial to professionals who profit from corporate valuation litigation, it has been harmful to shareholders, making deals costlier and less likely to be completed.
In this Article, we propose to end the problem of discretionary judicial valuation by tracing …
The Insider Trading Prohibition Act: A Small Step Towards A Codified Insider Trading Law, Kayla Quigley
The Insider Trading Prohibition Act: A Small Step Towards A Codified Insider Trading Law, Kayla Quigley
Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law
Many have called for reform to insider trading law, as the current judge-made doctrine is ambiguous, complicated, and ultimately permissive of many instances of trading on nonpublic information. Indeed, Congress has attempted several times to pass a uniform insider trading statute. Most recently, in December 2019, the House of Representatives passed the Insider Trading Prohibition Act (“ITPA”). The legislation codifies many current principles of insider trading jurisprudence while also expanding potential insider trading liability. Moreover, it attempts to fix gaps in the law that various cases, such as United States v. Newman, have declined to address.
Among other flaws, …