Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Stoneridge V. Scientific-Atlanta: Do Section 10(B) And Rule 10b-5 Require A Misstatement Or Omission? (Pre-Publication Draft), Rodney D. Chrisman
Stoneridge V. Scientific-Atlanta: Do Section 10(B) And Rule 10b-5 Require A Misstatement Or Omission? (Pre-Publication Draft), Rodney D. Chrisman
Faculty Publications and Presentations
This version is a draft submitted for publication and accepted prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling. The final version, published by QLR and also posted on Digital Commons, was modified subsequently to the Supreme Court ruling. Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta promises to be the most important securities litigation case to reach the Supreme Court since Central Bank of Denver. In this important case, Stoneridge presents the Supreme Court with the opportunity to clarify the application of its ruling in Central Bank to liability for secondary actors under section 10(b) and rule 10b-5. This Article points out that the fundamental question plaguing …
"Bright Line," "Substantial Participation," Or Something Else: Who Is A Primary Violator Under Rule 10b-5?, Rodney D. Chrisman
"Bright Line," "Substantial Participation," Or Something Else: Who Is A Primary Violator Under Rule 10b-5?, Rodney D. Chrisman
Faculty Publications and Presentations
This Note analyzes the competing theories currently used by courts and commentators to determine when a secondary actor’s conduct arises to the level of a primary violation under section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b-5 on a theory of aiding and abetting primary violators. This Note proposes a workable and logical standard that can be used to differentiate a primary violation from mere aiding and abetting. Part I of the Note discusses the decision in Central Bank of Denver and the resulting dilemma that faced the lower courts in determining …