Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Stoneridge Investment Partners V. Scientific-Atlanta: The Political Economy Of Securities Class Action Reform, Adam C. Pritchard
Stoneridge Investment Partners V. Scientific-Atlanta: The Political Economy Of Securities Class Action Reform, Adam C. Pritchard
Articles
I begin in Part II by explaining the wrong turn that the Court took in Basic. The Basic Court misunderstood the function of the reliance element and its relation to the question of damages. As a result, the securities class action regime established in Basic threatens draconian sanctions with limited deterrent benefit. Part III then summarizes the cases leading up to Stoneridge and analyzes the Court's reasoning in that case. In Stoneridge, like the decisions interpreting the reliance requirement of Rule 10b-5 that came before it, the Court emphasized policy implications. Sometimes policy implications are invoked to broaden the reach …
Should Congress Repeal Securities Class Action Reform?, Adam C. Pritchard
Should Congress Repeal Securities Class Action Reform?, Adam C. Pritchard
Other Publications
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 was designed to curtail class action lawsuits by the plaintiffs’ bar. In particular, the high-technology industry, accountants, and investment bankers thought that they had been unjustly victimized by class action lawsuits based on little more than declines in a company’s stock price. Prior to 1995, the plaintiffs’ bar had free rein to use the discovery process to troll for evidence to support its claims. Moreover, the high costs of litigation were a powerful weapon with which to coerce companies to settle claims. The plaintiffs’ bar and its allies in Congress have called …
The U.S. Treasury's Subpart F Report: Plus Ça Change, Plus C'Est La Même Chose?, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah
The U.S. Treasury's Subpart F Report: Plus Ça Change, Plus C'Est La Même Chose?, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah
Articles
On 29 December 2000, the U.S. Treasury Department released its long-awaited study of Subpart F, entitled “The Deferral of Income Earned through U.S. Controlled Foreign Corporations." This study was commenced in the aftermath of the controversy that ensued from the issuance and subsequent withdrawal of Notice 98-11. The study was originally expected to be issued in 1999 in response to the report published that year by the National Foreign Trade Council, which advocated significant changes in Subpart F. The Treasury Study’s delayed issuance at the end of the Clinton Administration means that it only has (at best) persuasive force for …