Law Commons^™

Leidos And The Roberts Court's Improvident Securities Law Docket, Matthew C. Turk, Karen E. Woody

Karen Woody

For its October 2017 term, the U.S. Supreme Court took up a noteworthy securities law case, Leidos, Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System. The legal question presented in Leidos was whether a failure to comply with a regulation issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Item 303 of Regulation S-K (Item 303), can be grounds for a securities fraud claim pursuant to Rule 10b-5 and the related Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Leidos teed up a significant set of issues because Item 303 concerns one of the more controversial corporate disclosures mandated by the SEC—an …

Federalism And Investor Protection: Constitutional Restraints On Preemption Of State Remedies For Securities Fraud, Manning Gilbert Warren Iii

Manning G. Warren III

Warren discusses the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and the National Securities Market Improvement Act, among other issues. Predominant federalism postulates foreclose the proposed intrusion into investors' tort remedies traditionally allowed by the states under common law.

Paper Dragon Thieves, J.S. Nelson

J.S. Nelson

The Corporate Shell Game, J.S. Nelson

J.S. Nelson

Are Investors’ Gains And Losses From Securities Fraud Equal Over Time?, Alicia J. Davis

Alicia Davis

Leading securities regulation scholars argue that compensating securities fraud victims is inefficient because diversified investors that trade frequently (generally, institutional investors) are as likely to gain from trading in fraud-tainted stocks as they are to suffer harm from doing so. In other words, institutional investors have no expected net losses from fraud over the long term and are effectively hedged against fraud risk. Moreover, individual investors can protect themselves from fraud, as well, by investing through diversified institutional intermediaries. In this Article, I demonstrate, using both probability theory and observational and computer-simulated trading data, that the argument of the compensation …

The Responsibilities Of Lawyers For Their Clients’ Misstatements And Omissions To The Securities Market In Singapore, Wai Yee Wan

Wai Yee WAN

This article examines the extent to which lawyers advising on the disclosure documents of their clients issued to the securities markets should be responsible for their clients’ disclosure failures. It identifies the following problems with the current framework. First, there is a lack of objective due diligence standards which lawyers are expected to meet when they are advising on public disclosure documents. Second, except for takeovers, lawyers are not subject to public enforcement actions even if they have not acted with due care and diligence in ensuring that their clients comply with their disclosure obligations. Third, private enforcement actions against …

The Implications Of Janus On The Liability Of Issuers In Jurisdictions Rejecting Collective Scienter, Neva B. Jeffries

Neva B Jeffries

This article addresses the increasing limitations placed on both the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and private litigants to pursue claims of fraud against wrongdoers under the federal securities laws, specifically for claims of misrepresentation under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the SEC’s Rule 10b-5. The most recent and glaring example of this curtailment occurred in 2011 with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders. For a defendant to be liable for a misrepresentation, Rule 10b-5(b) requires that the defendant be the “maker” of the false statement. …

Gordon Lf Ijlc 20132.Pdf, Randy D. Gordon

Randy D. Gordon

Who "Caused" The Enron Debacle?, David K. Millon

David K. Millon

No abstract provided.

Janus Capital Group, Inc. V. First Derivative Traders: The Culmination Of The Supreme Court’S Reactionary Rule 10b-5 Jurisprudence Which Protects Fraud At The Expense Of Investors, Charles W. Murdock

Charles W. Murdock

Summary: Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders: The Culmination of the Supreme Court’s Reactionary Rule 10b-5 Jurisprudence Which Protects Fraud at the Expense of Investors

“Political” decisions such as Citizens United and National Federation of Independent Business (“Obamacare”) reflect the reactionary bent of several Supreme Court justices. But this reactionary trend is discernible in other areas as well. With regard to Rule 10b-5, the Court has handed down a series of decisions that could be grouped into four trilogies. The article examines the trend over the past 40 years which has become increasingly conservative and finally reactionary.

The …

Janus Capital Group, Inc. V. First Derivative Traders: The Culmination Of The Supreme Court’S Reactionary Rule 10b-5 Jurisprudence Which Protects Fraud At The Expense Of Investors, Charles W. Murdock

Charles W. Murdock

Summary: Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders: The Culmination of the Supreme Court’s Reactionary Rule 10b-5 Jurisprudence Which Protects Fraud at the Expense of Investors

“Political” decisions such as Citizens United and National Federation of Independent Business (“Obamacare”) reflect the reactionary bent of several Supreme Court justices. But this reactionary trend is discernible in other areas as well. With regard to Rule 10b-5, the Court has handed down a series of decisions that could be grouped into four trilogies. The article examines the trend over the past 40 years which has become increasingly conservative and finally reactionary.

The …

The Cost Of Securities Fraud, Urska Velikonja

Urska Velikonja

Under the dominant account, securities fraud by public firms harms the firms’ shareholders and, more generally, capital markets. Recent financial legislation—the JOBS Act and the Dodd-Frank Act—as well as the influential 2011 D.C. Circuit decision in Business Roundtable v. SEC reinforce that same worldview. This Article contends that the account is wrong. Misreporting distorts economic decision-making by all firms, both those committing fraud and not. False information, coupled with efforts to hide fraud and avoid detection, impairs risk assessment by providers of human and financial capital, suppliers and customers, and thus misdirects capital and labor to lower-value projects. If fraud …

Sarbanes-Oxley's Whistleblower Provisions - Ten Years Later, Richard E. Moberly

Richard E. Moberly

Whistleblower advocates and academics greeted the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s whistleblower provisions in 2002 with great acclaim. The Act appeared to provide the strongest encouragement and broadest protections then available for private-sector whistleblowers. It influenced whistleblower law by unleashing a decade of expansive legal protection and formal encouragement for whistleblowers, perhaps indicating societal acceptance of whistleblowers as part of its law enforcement strategy. Despite these successes, however, Sarbanes-Oxley’s greatest lesson derives from its two most prominent failings. First, over the last the decade, the Act simply did not protect whistleblowers who suffered retaliation. Second, despite the massive increase in …

An Empirical Examination Of Scienter Pleading In Rule 10b-5 Claims Against External Auditors, Robert A. Prentice

Robert A. Prentice

Pleading requirements are the key to access to the courthouse. Nowhere is this more true than with Rule 10b-5 class action securities fraud claims where provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 impose special pleading burdens upon plaintiffs regarding the scienter element and bar them from discovery when defendants file a motion to dismiss. This article begins with a doctrinal history of the scienter element of a Rule 10b-5 claim which indicates that many key legal questions remain unsettled and that application of legal rules to specific factual allegations regarding a particular type of defendant—external auditors—is extraordinarily …

Extraterritoriality As Standing: A Standing Theory Of The Extraterritorial Application Of The Securities Laws, Erez Reuveni

Erez Reuveni

This Article contends that the current treatment of the extraterritorial scope of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act as a question of subject matter jurisdiction is wrong. Although the Act is silent as to its extraterritorial application, for over forty years courts have analyzed the Act’s extraterritorial scope as a question of subject matter jurisdiction, relying on the so-called “conduct” and “effects” tests. Because courts apply these tests in an ad hoc, case-by-case manner, they are inherently unpredictable and unnecessarily complicated. This state of affairs has become particularly troublesome in recent years, as so-called “foreign-cubed” securities fraud lawsuits - lawsuits filed …

• The Credit Crisis And Subprime Litigation: How Fraud Without Motive ‘Makes Little Economic Sense’, Peter Hamner

Peter Hamner

The recent collapse of the financial markets spurred numerous lawsuits seeking a faulty party. Many plaintiffs argue that market participants committed securities fraud. They claim that deficient subprime loans caused the financial crisis. These risky loans were allegedly originated by banks to be sold off to third parties. The subprime loans were securitized and spread throughout the financial markets. The risk these loans presented was allegedly not disclosed to the buyers of the loans and securities on the loans. As these deficient loans and securities began to default the financial markets came to a halt. This article argues that securities …

Cooperation With Securities Fraud, Ronald J. Colombo

Ronald J Colombo

Secondary actors, such as lawyers, accountants, and bankers, are oftentimes critical players in securities fraud. The important question of their liability to private plaintiffs has been, and remains, one of considerable confusion. In Stoneridge Inv. Partners LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court could have, but failed to, dispel some of this confusion.

Contrary to the common understanding, Stoneridge did not foreclose liability on the part of secondary actors who manage to remain anonymous participants in securities fraud. Read carefully, Stoneridge instead held that proximity to fraud should drive the liability determination.

Although "proximity" is itself an indefinite concept, …

Reforming Securities Litigation Reform: A Proposal For Restructuring The Relationship Between Public And Private Enforcement Of Rule 10b-5, Amanda M. Rose

Amanda M Rose

Forthcoming in Columbia Law Review, Vol. 108, No. 6 (Oct. 2008)

For years, commentators have debated how to reform the controversial Rule 10b-5 class action, without pausing to ask whether the game is worth the candle. Is private enforcement of Rule 10b-5 worth preserving, or might we be better off with exclusive public enforcement? This fundamental and neglected question demands attention today more than ever. An academic consensus has now emerged that private enforcement of Rule 10b-5 cannot be defended on compensatory grounds, at least in its most common form (a fraud-on-the-market class action brought against a non-trading issuer). That …

Corporate Corruption And The Complicity Of Congress And The Supreme Court - The Tortuous Path From Central Bank To Stoneridge Investment Partners, Charles W. Murdock

Charles W. Murdock

The main thrust of this article is that courts and legislatures, particularly the past Republican Congresses and the Supreme Court, as well as lower federal courts, are biased in favor of management; moreover that their failure to hold management to account has emboldened management to engage in illicit behavior and has led to supineness, or worse, by gatekeepers, such as accountants and boards of directors. The willingness of federal courts to disregard blatant corruption and give crooks a free pass by engaging in outcome determinative decision making and strained interpretations of the law is epitomized in the recent decision of …

“Stoneridge And Scheme Liability Under Rule 10b-5: The Case For Private Enforcement.”, Erica L. Finkelson

Erica L Finkelson

This note examines the issue of scheme liability in securities fraud, which was heard on October 9, 2007 before the Supreme Court in Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLS, (Stoneridge) v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. and Motorola, Inc. Stoneridge represents shareholders who purchased stock in the cable company Charter Communications, Inc. (Charter). Stoneridge sued Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola for fraud because these companies knowingly agreed to let Charter overpay them for cable boxes and returned those funds to Charter as advertising payments so that Charter could inflate its revenue, misleading investors as to Charter’s book value. This note argues that Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola’s purposeful and …

The Investor Compensation Fund, Alicia J. Davis

Alicia Davis

The prevailing view among securities regulation scholars is that compensating victims of secondary market securities fraud is inefficient. As the theory goes, diversified investors are as likely to be on the gaining side of a transaction tainted by fraud as the losing side. Therefore, such investors should have no expected net losses from fraud because their expected losses will be matched by expected gains. This Article argues that this view is flawed; even diversified investors can suffer substantial losses from fraud, presenting a compelling case for compensation.

The interest in compensation, however, should be advanced by better means than are …

The Use Of The Corporate Monitor In Sec Enforcement Actions, Jennifer O'Hare

Jennifer O'Hare

This paper addresses the SEC's recent use of the corporate monitor as ancillary relief in its enforcement actions. The corporate monitor represents the latest example of the SEC seeking to shift its enforcement responsibilities to the public companies it regulates. Focusing on the role played by the corporate monitor imposed by the SEC in its enforcement action brought against WorldCom, this paper considers some of the dangers posed by the use of the corporate monitor, such as the whether the appointment of a corporate monitor constitutes impermissible overreaching by the SEC. The paper recognizes that the corporate monitor can be …

The Dangers And Drawbacks Of The Disclosure Antidote: Toward A More Substantive Approach To Securities Regulation, Susanna K. Ripken

Susanna K. Ripken

This article analyzes and critiques the federal securities laws' reliance on disclosure as the primary method of protecting investors and regulating the securities markets. Since the inception of the federal securities law seventy years ago, the policy has always been that, as long as corporations disclose all material information about their operations and their stock, public investors can make their own informed investment decisions. The unprecedented number of corporate frauds, scandals, and bankruptcies in recent years has revealed weaknesses in the traditional disclosure strategy of regulation. Disclosure rules did not protect American investors from the damages they suffered when large …