Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Securities Law

Columbia Law School

Faculty Scholarship

Fraud on the market

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Halliburton Ii: It All Depends On What Defendants Need To Show To Establish No Impact On Price, Merritt B. Fox Jan 2015

Halliburton Ii: It All Depends On What Defendants Need To Show To Establish No Impact On Price, Merritt B. Fox

Faculty Scholarship

Rule 1Ob-5 private damages actions cannot proceed on a class basis unless the plaintiffs are entitled to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance. In Halliburton II, the Supreme Court provides defendants with an opportunity, before class certification, to rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption through evidece that the misstatement had no effect on the issuer's share price. It left unspecified, however, the standard by which the sufficiency of this evidence should be judged.

This Article explores the two most plausible approaches to setting this standard. One approach would be to impose the same statistical burden on defendants seeking to show there was …


Securities Class Actions Against Foreign Issuers, Merritt B. Fox Jan 2012

Securities Class Actions Against Foreign Issuers, Merritt B. Fox

Faculty Scholarship

This Article addresses the fundamental question of whether, as a matter of good policy, it is ever appropriate that a foreign issuer be subject to the U.S. fraud-on-the-market private damages class action liability regime, and, if so, by what kinds of claimants and under what circumstances. The bulk of payouts under the U.S. securities laws arise out of fraud-on-the-market class actions – actions against issuers on behalf of secondary market purchasers of their shares for trading losses suffered as a result of issuer misstatements in violation of Rule 10b-5. In the first decade of this century, foreign issuers became frequent …


Understanding Dura, Merritt B. Fox Jan 2005

Understanding Dura, 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 10b-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 defendant's bar equally enthusiastically hailed it as …


Demystifying Causation In Fraud-On-The-Market Actions, Merritt B. Fox Jan 2005

Demystifying Causation In Fraud-On-The-Market Actions, Merritt B. Fox

Faculty Scholarship

An issuer makes a positive, material misstatement in violation of Rule 10b-5. What must an investor who purchases the issuer's shares on the open market show to establish causation in a "fraud-on-the-market" action for damages? After years of confusion in the lower courts, the Supreme Court recently granted certiorari on the question in the case of Broudo v. Dura Pharmaceuticals.

This Article argues that the confusion in the lower courts has arisen because they have analyzed the issue in terms of the twin concepts of "transaction causation" and "loss causation." They initially developed this bifurcated framework as a way …