Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Securities Law
Halliburton Ii At Four: Has It Changed The Outcome Of Class Certification Decisions?, Noah Weingarten
Halliburton Ii At Four: Has It Changed The Outcome Of Class Certification Decisions?, Noah Weingarten
Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258 (2014) (Halliburton II) appeared to give corporate defendants a new tool to defeat class certification in the context of securities fraud class action litigation: rebutting the requisite presumption of reliance by showing a lack of "price impact"-a term that Halliburton II used to describe whether the price of an allegedly affected company's stock went up or down. However, based on an empirical study of pre- versus post-Halliburton II class certification decisions, it appears that the outcomes of class certification decisions have become even …
Reviving Reliance, Ann M. Lipton
Reviving Reliance, Ann M. Lipton
Fordham Law Review
This Article explores the misalignment between the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws and the private causes of action available to investors to enforce those requirements. Historically, federally mandated disclosures were designed to allow investors to set an appropriate price for publicly traded securities. Today’s disclosures, however, also enable stockholders to participate in corporate governance and act as a check on managerial misbehavior. To enforce these requirements, investors’ chief option is a claim under the general antifraud statute, section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. But courts are deeply suspicious of investors’ attempts to use the Act …
Taking Section 10(B) Seriously: Criminal Enforcement Of Sec Rules, Steve Thel
Taking Section 10(B) Seriously: Criminal Enforcement Of Sec Rules, Steve Thel
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court has determined the scope of federal securities laws in a series of cases in which it has read section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act as either prohibiting certain misconduct or authorizing the SEC to regulate that conduct and only that conduct. Judging by the language, structure and history of the Exchange Act, the Court’s reading is wrong. Section 10(b) does not prohibit anything, and it neither grants the SEC rulemaking power nor limits the rulemaking power granted to the SEC elsewhere in the Exchange Act. Instead, section 10(b) simply triggers criminal sanctions for certain rule violations. …