Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Securities Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

PDF

Securities fraud

University of San Diego

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Securities Law

Clearer Skies For Investors: Clearing Firm Liability Under The Uniform Securities Act Jan 2002

Clearer Skies For Investors: Clearing Firm Liability Under The Uniform Securities Act

San Diego Law Review

Securities fraud poses a major threat to the financial security of millions of investors. Stock fraud and the brokerage firms perpetrating it thrive, bilking investors out of millions of dollars annually. The North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), an association comprised of state and regional securities regulators, estimates that investors lose $6 billion a year to investment fraud, including micro-cap stock fraud.1 In 2000, Bradley Skolnick, the Indiana Securities Commissioner and former head of the NASAA, stated that boiler rooms were “the single greatest source of investment scams.” Yet defrauded investors are unlikely to recover funds lost to fraud, because …


Triggering One-Year Limitations On Section 10(B) And Rule 10b-5 Actions: Actual Or Inquiry Discovery, Charles Benjamin Nutley Nov 1993

Triggering One-Year Limitations On Section 10(B) And Rule 10b-5 Actions: Actual Or Inquiry Discovery, Charles Benjamin Nutley

San Diego Law Review

Securities fraud lawsuits under Rule 10b-5 are governed by the one and three year limitative period in section 9(e) of the Securities Exchange Act. The one-year period is triggered by the plaintiff's discovery of the facts constituting the violation. Courts differ, however, on the correct discovery standard for section 9(e). This Comment addresses whether courts should apply an inquiry notice standard or an actual notice standard to trigger the one-year limitative period.