Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Securities Law
Investors And Employees As Relief Defendants In Investment Fraud Receiverships: Promoting Efficiency By Following The Plain Meaning Of "Legitimate Claim Or Ownership Interest", Jared A. Wilkerson
Investors And Employees As Relief Defendants In Investment Fraud Receiverships: Promoting Efficiency By Following The Plain Meaning Of "Legitimate Claim Or Ownership Interest", Jared A. Wilkerson
W&M Law Student Publications
Relief defendants are nominal, innocent parties who hold funds traceable to the receivership but have no legitimate claim or ownership interest in them. These nominal parties, as opposed to full or primary defendants, have no cause of action asserted against them, and if they show no legitimate claim to the funds traced to the receivership, the funds are disgorged — generally at summary judgment. This seemingly simple relief defendant tool is used by receivers and regulatory agencies to quickly recover receivership funds for ultimate distribution to creditors. Recently, however, conflict has arisen in federal courts concerning the meaning of “legitimate …
Mismatch: The Misuse Of Market Efficiency In Market Manipulation Class Actions, Charles R. Korsmo
Mismatch: The Misuse Of Market Efficiency In Market Manipulation Class Actions, Charles R. Korsmo
William & Mary Law Review
Plaintiffs commonly bring two distinct types of claims under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: (1) claims of material misrepresentations or omissions, and (2) claims of tradebased market manipulation. Despite the distinctive features of the two types of claims, courts have tended to treat them identically when applying the “fraud on the market” doctrine. In particular, courts have required both types of plaintiffs to make identical showings that the relevant security was traded in an “efficient market” in order to gain a presumption of reliance. The reasons for requiring such a showing by plaintiffs in a misrepresentation …
The Howey Test Turns 64: Are The Courts Grading This Test On A Curve?, Miriam R. Albert
The Howey Test Turns 64: Are The Courts Grading This Test On A Curve?, Miriam R. Albert
William & Mary Business Law Review
Sixty-four years ago, the Supreme Court decided SEC v. W.J. Howey, crafting a definition for one form of security, known as an investment contract. The Supreme Court’s definition of investment contract in Howey is flexible, consistent with the Congressional approach to defining the broader concept of what constitutes a security. This choice of adopting a flexible definition for investment contract is not without cost, and raises the specter of inconsistent interpretation and/or application by the lower courts that threatens to undermine the utility of the Howey test itself as a trigger for investor protection. The intentional breadth and adaptability of …