Securities Law Commons^™

Broader Is Better: How Courts Should Determine Whether Or Not An Allegation Of Fraud Falls Under The Preemption Provision Of The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, Jennifer Rose Roeske

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues that the correct approach for interpreting the scope of SLUSA's preemption language is the "literalist" approach taken by the Sixth Circuit. Part I of this Note lays out the legal framework of the Reform Act of 1995, Congress's intent in enacting the legislation, and the unintended consequences that flowed from the PSLRA's heightened pleading requirements. Part I also discusses SLUSA, what led to its passage, and its preemption language. Additionally, it looks at the Supreme Court's interpretation of preemption statutes generally, as well as the Supreme Court's broad interpretation of SLUSA in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner …

Mandatory Class Action Lawsuits As A Restructuring Technique, Bryant B. Edwards, Jeffrey A. Herbst, Selina K. Hewitt

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reassessing Damages In Securities Fraud Class Actions, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

No coherent doctrinal statement exists for calculating open-market damages for securities fraud class actions. Instead, courts have tried in vain to fashion common-law deceit and misrepresentation remedies to fit open-market fraud. The result is a relatively ineffective system with a hallmark feature: unpredictable damage awards. This poses a significant fraud deterrence problem from both a practical and a theoretical standpoint.

In 2005, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to clarify open-market damage principles and to facilitate earlier dismissal of cases without compensable economic losses. Instead, in Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo, it further confused the damage issue by (1) perpetuating the …