Securities Law Commons^™

The Panuwat Snowball: Correlation Does Not Equal Materiality, Tanner Gattuso

Catholic University Law Review

Insider trading is a term of art referencing the fraudulent practice of trading securities in a company on the basis of material, nonpublic information about that same company in breach of some duty owed to another. The practice erodes the public’s trust in the integrity of our capital markets for a reason that is rather intuitive: it is inherently unfair to allow an individual to make a quick and certain profit by exploiting material, nonpublic information to which he privy due solely to his position in a company or some other relationship of trust and confidence. In this context, unrelenting …

The Solution To Shadow Trading Is Not Found In Current Insider Trading Law: A Proposed Amendment To Rule 10b5-2, Jamel Gross-Cassel

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Shadow trading is a lucrative way to exploit a loophole in insider trading law. Insiders abuse this loophole to make six-figure profits and escape liability when done at the right companies. Those who shadow trade use material, nonpublic information to trade not in the securities of their own company, which would be illegal, but in the securities of a closely related company where the information is just as impactful. Efforts to close this loophole rely on the individual insider trading policies of the involved companies. These policies vary in language, making liability for shadow trading dependent on specific language or …

The Insider Trading Prohibition Act: A Small Step Towards A Codified Insider Trading Law, Kayla Quigley

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Many have called for reform to insider trading law, as the current judge-made doctrine is ambiguous, complicated, and ultimately permissive of many instances of trading on nonpublic information. Indeed, Congress has attempted several times to pass a uniform insider trading statute. Most recently, in December 2019, the House of Representatives passed the Insider Trading Prohibition Act (“ITPA”). The legislation codifies many current principles of insider trading jurisprudence while also expanding potential insider trading liability. Moreover, it attempts to fix gaps in the law that various cases, such as United States v. Newman, have declined to address.

Among other flaws, …

High Crimes: Liability For Directors Of Retail Marijuana Corporations, Lauren A. Newell

Law Faculty Scholarship

Selling retail marijuana in the United States is illegal — or is it? A rising number of states have legalized the retail sale of marijuana and are busily regulating these sales and the companies that make them. Even so, the sale of marijuana is a crime under federal law. Are companies that sell retail marijuana duly sanctioned, productive contributors to their state economies, or are they felons just waiting for the wheels of justice to turn in their direction? At this moment, no one can answer that question with certainty.

What is certain is that more companies are being formed …

Private Company Lies, Elizabeth Pollman

All Faculty Scholarship

Rule 10b-5’s antifraud catch-all is one of the most consequential pieces of American administrative law and most highly developed areas of judicially-created federal law. Although the rule broadly prohibits securities fraud in both public and private company stock, the vast majority of jurisprudence, and the voluminous academic literature that accompanies it, has developed through a public company lens.

This Article illuminates how the explosive growth of private markets has left huge portions of U.S. capital markets with relatively light securities fraud scrutiny and enforcement. Some of the largest private companies by valuation grow in an environment of extreme information asymmetry …

The Myth Of Morrison: Securities Fraud Litigation Against Foreign Issuers, Robert Bartlett, Matthew D. Cain, Jill E. Fisch, Steven Davidoff Solomon

All Faculty Scholarship

Using a sample of 388 securities fraud lawsuits filed between 2002 and 2017 against foreign issuers, we examine the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. We find that the description of Morrison as a steamroller, substantially ending litigation against foreign issuers, is a myth. Instead, we find that Morrison did not significantly change the type of litigation brought against foreign issuers, which, both before and after this case, focused on foreign issuers with a U.S. listing and substantial U.S. trading volume. Although dismissal rates rose post-Morrison, we find no evidence …

Informed Trading And Its Regulation, Merritt B. Fox, Lawrence R. Glosten, Gabriel Rauterberg

Faculty Scholarship

Informed trading – trading on information not yet reflected in a stock’s price – drives the stock market. Such informational advantages can arise from astute analysis of varied pieces of public news, from just released public information, or from confidential information from inside a firm. We argue that these disparate types of trading are all better regulated as part of the broader phenomenon of informed trading. Informed trading makes share prices more accurate, enhancing the allocation of capital, but also makes markets less liquid, which is costly to the efficiency of trade. Informed trading thus poses a fundamental trade-off in …

Like Moths To A Flame - International Securities Litigation After Morrison: Correcting The Supreme Court's Transactional Test, Marco Ventoruzzo

Marco Ventoruzzo

Because of the broad jurisdiction American courts have asserted in cases arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, they have been called a Shangri-la for “foreign-cubed” class actions with little connection to the United States. Over the past forty years, the standards used by American courts to determine their jurisdiction in international securities disputes have evolved, culminating in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Morrison decision of 2010. The new transactional test promulgated in Morrison replaced all of its predecessor tests, from a test measuring whether the conduct in question took place in the United States to a test measuring whether …

Rebutting The Fraud On The Market Presumption In Securities Fraud Class Actions: Halliburton Ii Opens The Door, Victor E. Schwartz, Christopher E. Appel

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

In Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Halliburton II), the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of the “fraud on the market” presumption underlying securities fraud class action litigation. This presumption is vital to bringing suits as class actions because it excuses plaintiffs from proving individual reliance on an alleged corporate misstatement on the theory that any public statements made by the company are incorporated into its stock price and consequently relied upon by all investors. Thus, the Court’s decision to uphold the validity of the presumption has been hailed as a significant victory for those …

Beyond Dirks: Gratuitous Tipping And Insider Trading, Donna M. Nagy

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Did an investment banker who gratuitously shared material nonpublic information with his brother, with no expectation of receiving anything in return, commit securities fraud? And is the investment banker's brother-in-law jointly liable for trading securities on the basis of what he knew to be gratuitous tips? The Supreme Court is poised to answer those questions in Salman v. United States, after steering clear of insider trading law for nearly two decades. It has been even longer still since the Court last addressed securities fraud liability relating to stock trading tips-it articulated a "personal benefit" test for joint tipper-tippee liability in …

Plausible Cause: Exploring The Limits Of Loss Causation In Pleading And Proving Market Fraud Claims Under Securities Exchange Act Section 10(B) And Sec Rule 10b-5, Robert N. Rapp

Robert N Rapp

This article explores the critical role of loss causation in pleading and proving fraud-on-the-market claims in private actions under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Loss causation is a separate, essential, element of any private action under these provisions, and weighs heavily on securities fraud class actions brought under the fraud-on-the-market theory. Claims in these cases are based on a security market price said to be made artificial by reason of materially false or misleading information disseminated into an efficient market, and which resets to a correct level when a disclosure event …

Better Bounty Hunting: How The Sec's New Whistleblower Program Changes The Securities Fraud Class Action Debate, Amanda M. Rose

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Disaggregated Classes, Benjamin P. Edwards

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Loser Pays: The Latest Installment In The Battle-Scarred, Cliff-Hanging Survival Of The Rule 10b-5 Class Action, John C. Coffee Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

When I was an upper-year student at Yale Law School in the late 1960s, I was sometimes as undermotivated as contemporary upper-year law students regularly appear to be. But there was then an appropriate role model for us: a graduate student, brimming with efficiency and self-discipline, who occupied a carrel in the law library, seemingly working day and night on a special research project. He had piled law review articles and cases a foot or more about his carrel, and anyone walking by could see that he seemed obsessed with something called Rule 10b-5. I had dimly heard of this …

The Sitting Ducks Of Securities Class Action Litigation: Bio-Pharmas And The Need For Improved Evaluation Of Scientific Data, Stuart R. Cohn, Erin M. Swick

Stuart R. Cohn

Rule 10b-5, a powerful weapon against any publicly-listed company whose share price drops on adverse news, is particularly skewed against pharmaceutical and other bio-technology companies (bio-pharmas). It is not a coincidence that there is a disproportionate number of class actions filed against bio-pharmas. The volume and complexity of data underlying most bio-pharma cases create enormous outcome uncertainties, settlement pressures, and potentially huge contingent liabilities over substantial periods of time. The vulnerability and risks that bio-pharmas face in Rule 10b-5 class actions are unique among all publicly-traded industries, yet many cases proceed along traditional grounds without courts employing either their statutory …

Halliburton, Basic And Fraud On The Market: The Need For A New Paradigm, Charles W. Murdock

Charles W. Murdock

Summary: Halliburton, Basic and Fraud on the Market: The Need for a New Paradigm

If defrauded securities plaintiffs cannot bring a class-action lawsuit, there often will be no effective remedy since the amount at stake for individual plaintiffs is not sufficient to warrant the substantial costs of litigation. To surmount the problem of individualized reliance and establish commonality, federal courts for twenty-five years have been employing the Basic fraud-on-the-market theory which posits that, in an efficient market, investors rely on the integrity of the market price.

While class certification at one time was a matter of course, today it is …

Janus Capital Group, Inc. V. First Derivative Traders: The Culmination Of The Supreme Court’S Evolution From Liberal To Reactionary In Rule 10b-5 Actions, Charles W. Murdock

Charles W. Murdock

“Political” decisions such as Citizens United and National Federation of Independent Business (“Obamacare”) reflect the reactionary bent of several Supreme Court justices. But this reactionary trend is discernible in other areas as well. With regard to Rule 10b-5, the Court has handed down a series of decisions that could be grouped into four trilogies. The article examines the trend over the past 40 years which has become increasingly conservative and finally reactionary.

The first trilogy was a liberal one, arguably overextending the scope of Rule 10b-5. This was followed by a conservative trilogy which put a brake on such extension, …

The Tips Are For The Taking: The Supreme Court Limits Third Party Liability In Dirks V. Securities And Exchange Commission, W. Steven Shayer

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court And The Shareholder Litigant: Basic, Inc. V. Levinson In Context, Jayne W. Barnard

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The "In Connection With" Requirement Of Rule 10b-5, C. Edward Fletcher Iii

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Trouble With Basic: Price Distortion After Halliburton, Jill E. Fisch

All Faculty Scholarship

Many commentators credit the Supreme Court’s decision in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, which allowed courts to presume reliance rather than requiring individualized proof, with spawning a vast industry of private securities fraud litigation. Today, the validity of Basic’s holding has come under attack as scholars have raised questions about the extent to which the capital markets are efficient. In truth, both these views are overstated. Basic’s adoption of the Fraud on the Market presumption reflected a retreat from prevailing lower court recognition that the application of a reliance requirement was inappropriate in the context of impersonal public …

“Fine Distinctions” In The Contemporary Law Of Insider Trading, Donald C. Langevoort

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

William Cary’s opinion for the SEC in In re Cady, Roberts & Co. built the foundation on which the modern law of insider trading rests. This paper—a contribution to Columbia Law School’s recent celebration of Cary’s Cady Roberts opinion, explores some of these—particularly the emergence of a doctrine of “reckless” insider trading. Historically, the crucial question is this: how or why did the insider trading prohibition survive the retrenchment that happened to so many other elements of Rule 10b-5? It argues that the Supreme Court embraced the continuing existence of the “abstain or disclose” rule, and tolerated constructive fraud notwithstanding …

Mapping The Future Of Insider Trading Law: Of Boundaries, Gaps, And Strategies, John C. Coffee Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

The current law on insider trading is remarkably unrationalized because it contains gaps and loopholes the size of the Washington Square Arch. For example, if a thief breaks into your office, opens your files, learns material nonpublic information, and trades on that information, he has not breached a fiduciary duty and is presumably exempt from insider trading liability. But drawing a line that can convict only the fiduciary and not the thief seems morally incoherent. Nor is it doctrinally necessary.

The basic methodology handed down by the Supreme Court in SEC v. Dirks and United States v. O'Hagan dictates (i) …

The New Uniform Statute Of Limitations For Federal Securities Fraud Actions: Its Evolution, Its Impact, And A Call For Reform, Anthony Michael Sabino

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Determining The Proper Pleading Standard Under The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act Of 1995 After In Re Silicon Graphics , Erin Brady

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Like Moths To A Flame - International Securities Litigation After Morrison: Correcting The Supreme Court's Transactional Test, Marco Ventoruzzo

Journal Articles

Because of the broad jurisdiction American courts have asserted in cases arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, they have been called a Shangri-la for “foreign-cubed” class actions with little connection to the United States. Over the past forty years, the standards used by American courts to determine their jurisdiction in international securities disputes have evolved, culminating in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Morrison decision of 2010. The new transactional test promulgated in Morrison replaced all of its predecessor tests, from a test measuring whether the conduct in question took place in the United States to a test measuring whether …

Bien Venue: Sec V. Johnson And The Policy For Broad Procedural Requirements In Public Securities Actions, Kelly Kylis

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Insider Trading, Congressional Officials, And Duties Of Entrustment, Donna M. Nagy

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This article refutes what has become the conventional wisdom that insider trading by members of Congress and legislative staffers is “totally legal” because such congressional officials are immune from federal insider trading law. It argues that this well-worn claim is rooted in twin misconceptions based on: (1) a lack of regard for the broad and sweeping duties of entrustment which attach to public office and (2) an unduly restrictive view of Supreme Court precedents, which have interpreted Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act to impose liability whenever a person trades securities on the basis of material nonpublic information in …

The Sitting Ducks Of Securities Class Action Litigation: Bio-Pharmas And The Need For Improved Evaluation Of Scientific Data, Stuart R. Cohn, Erin M. Swick

UF Law Faculty Publications

Rule 10b-5, a powerful weapon against any publicly-listed company whose share price drops on adverse news, is particularly skewed against pharmaceutical and other bio-technology companies (bio-pharmas). It is not a coincidence that there is a disproportionate number of class actions filed against bio-pharmas. The volume and complexity of data underlying most bio-pharma cases create enormous outcome uncertainties, settlement pressures, and potentially huge contingent liabilities over substantial periods of time. The vulnerability and risks that bio-pharmas face in Rule 10b-5 class actions are unique among all publicly-traded industries, yet many cases proceed along traditional grounds without courts employing either their statutory …

When The Corporate Luminary Becomes Seriously Ill: When Is A Corporation Obligated To Disclose That Illness And Should The Securities And Exchange Commission Adopt A Rule Requiring Disclosure?, Allan Horwich

Faculty Working Papers

Recent speculation and rumors about the health of senior corporate executives of public companies (most notably Steve Jobs of Apple Inc.) and the advanced age of many leaders in the corporate community prompt a consideration of when, if at all, there must be public disclosure of the ill health of a person whose involvement in a corporation is perceived as vital to the continued financial success or independence of that company. This Article addresses the application of various disclosure requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to facts regarding the health of a corporate "luminary." An adverse development in …