Securities Law Commons^™

Conscripting Attorneys To Battle Corporate Fraud Without Shields Or Armor? Reconsidering Retaliatory Discharge In Light Of Sarbanes-Oxley, Kim T. Vu

Michigan Law Review

This Note advocates that federal courts should allow attorneys to bring retaliatory discharge claims under SOX. Traditional rationales prohibiting the claims of retaliatory discharge by attorneys do not apply in the context of Sarbanes-Oxley. This Note contends that the Department of Labor and the federal courts should interpret the whistleblower provisions of § 806 as protecting attorneys who report under § 307. Assuring reporting attorneys that they have protection from retaliation will encourage them to whistleblow and thereby advance SOX's policy goal of ferreting out corporate fraud. Part I explores the legal landscape of retaliatory discharge suits by attorneys. This …

Reassessing Damages In Securities Fraud Class Actions, Elizabeth C. Burch

ExpressO

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 …

Sarbanes-Oxley: Section 404 And The Death Of The Small Public Company, M Gregory Cutler

ExpressO

With the approaching implementation of § 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, there is widespread criticism of the enormous costs of complying with the section. Although § 404 arguably improves investor confidence by making the financial condition of a company more transparent, businesses argue that the costs are simply too high. The question remains as to whether high costs are a good enough reason to expose investors to the type of fraud Sarbanes-Oxley protects, or whether there are public policy reasons to ease the burdens.

This note examines the effects of § 404 on small businesses, and argues that public policy …

Bringing Coherence To Mens Rea Analysis For Securities-Related Offenses, Michael L. Seigel

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article has demonstrated that the failure of commentators and the courts to tackle mens rea analysis head-on has resulted in lasting incoherence in the law. Unintelligible legal doctrine does not simply upset individuals who strive for elegant solutions to legal problems; it also exacts a huge, real-life toll. Juries faced with incoherent legal instructions are likely to become disillusioned about the justice system. Citizens receive inadequate guidance as to acceptable and unacceptable behavior, hampering deterrence -- particularly in the securities-law arena, where one presumably finds mostly rational actors who would be deterred by clear legal rules. Securities regulation is …

The Next Epidemic: Bubbles And The Growth And Decay Of Securities Regulation, Erik F. Gerding

Publications

This article explores how speculative bubbles undermine the effectiveness of securities regulations and spawn epidemics of securities fraud. A brief historical survey demonstrates that stock market bubbles almost invariably coincide with epidemics of securities fraud, and provides a compelling argument that the outbreak of fraud in the Enron era did not stem merely from factors unique to the 1990s, but from the dynamics of an asset price bubble as well.

Drawing on perspectives from securities law practice and economic theory, the article argues that bubbles dilute the deterrent effect of antifraud rules and promote deregulation. Both effects alter the calculus …

After Dura: Causation In Fraud-On-The-Market Actions, Merritt B. Fox

Faculty Scholarship

On April 19, 2005, the Supreme Court announced its unanimous opinion in Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, concerning what a plaintiff must show to establish causation in a Rule lob-5 fraud-on-the-market suit for damages. The opinion had been awaited with considerable anticipation, being described at the time of oral argument in the Financial Times, for example, as the "most important securities case in a decade." After the opinion was handed down, a representative of the plaintiffs' bar lauded it as a "unanimous ruling protecting investors' ability to sue." A representative of the defendants' bar equally enthusiastically hailed it as "a …