Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Securities Law
Whitman And The Fiduciary Relationship Conundrum, Lisa Fairfax
Whitman And The Fiduciary Relationship Conundrum, Lisa Fairfax
All Faculty Scholarship
While the law on insider trading has been convoluted and, in Judge Jed S. Rakoff’s words, “topsy turvy,” the law on insider trading is supposedly clear on at least one point: insider trading liability is premised upon a fiduciary relationship. Thus, all three seminal U.S. Supreme Court cases articulating the necessary elements for demonstrating any form of insider trading liability under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 made crystal clear that a fiduciary relationship represented the lynchpin for such liability.
Alas, insider trading law is not clear about the source from which the fiduciary …
The Unjustified Furor Over Securities Arbitration, Gilbert R. Serota
The Unjustified Furor Over Securities Arbitration, Gilbert R. Serota
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
"Controlling" Securities Fraud: Proposed Liability Standards For Controlling Persons Under The 1933 And 1934 Securities Acts, Nancy Staudt
"Controlling" Securities Fraud: Proposed Liability Standards For Controlling Persons Under The 1933 And 1934 Securities Acts, Nancy Staudt
Faculty Working Papers
This Student Note investigates the history and intent underlying the controlling person liability provisions of the 1933 and 1934 Securities Act. It notes that courts have adopted a ranges of standards for holding controlling persons liability, but whichever standard is chosen--that standard is applied to both Acts. This note argues that courts should impose unique liability standards for each statute in order to fully realize Congress' purpose in adopting the laws.
The "Duty" To Be A Rational Shareholder, David A. Hoffman
The "Duty" To Be A Rational Shareholder, David A. Hoffman
ExpressO
How and when do courts determine that corporate disclosures are actionable under the federal securities laws? The applicable standard is materiality: would a (mythical) "reasonable investor" have considered the disclosures important. As I establish through empirical and statistical testing of 500 cases analyzing the materiality standard, judicial findings of immateriality are remarkably common, and have been stable over time. Materiality's scope results in the dismissal of a large number of claims, and creates a set of cases in which courts attempt to explain and defend their vision of who is, and is not, a "reasonable investor." Thus, materiality provides an …
Statutes With Multiple Personality Disorders: The Value Of Ambiguity In Statutory Design And Interpretation, Joseph A. Grundfest, Adam C. Pritchard
Statutes With Multiple Personality Disorders: The Value Of Ambiguity In Statutory Design And Interpretation, Joseph A. Grundfest, Adam C. Pritchard
Articles
Ambiguity serves a legislative purpose. When legislators perceive a need to compromise they can, among other strategies, "obscur[e] the particular meaning of a statute, allowing different legislators to read the obscured provisions the way they wish." Legislative ambiguity reaches its peak when a statute is so elegantly crafted that it credibly supports multiple inconsistent interpretations by legislators and judges. Legislators with opposing views can then claim that they have prevailed in the legislative arena, and, as long as courts continue to issue conflicting interpretations, these competing claims of legislative victory remain credible. Formal legal doctrine, in contrast, frames legislative ambiguity …
They Toil Not, Neither Do They Spin: Civil Liability Under The Oregon Securities Law, Keith A. Rowley
They Toil Not, Neither Do They Spin: Civil Liability Under The Oregon Securities Law, Keith A. Rowley
Scholarly Works
Under Oregon law, persons who sell securities in violation of statutory registration requirements, or by means of some misrepresentation or omission of material fact, may be liable to any person or entity who buys securities from or through them. Likewise, persons who buy securities by means of some misrepresentation or omission of material fact may be liable to any person or entity who sells securities to or through them. In addition to, or in lieu of, suing the person who committed the material misrepresentation or omission, a plaintiff may sue one or more persons or entities who might be vicariously …
Section 14(E) Of The Williams Act And The Rule 10b-5 Comparisons, Mark J. Loewenstein
Section 14(E) Of The Williams Act And The Rule 10b-5 Comparisons, Mark J. Loewenstein
Publications
The passage of the Williams Act in 1968 added a set of provisions to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to govern tender offers. In this article, Professor Loewenstein examines the antifraud provision of the Williams Act, codified as section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the development of decisional law under it. After discussing the propriety of inferring a private cause of action from section 14(e), Professor Loewenstein argues that the judiciary's reliance on rule 10b-5 precedents to set the bounds of the 14(e) cause of action is unwarranted. He concludes: 1) that scienter should not …