Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. V. Curran: Establishing An Implied Private Right Of Action Under The Commodity Exchange Act, Howard E. Hamann
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. V. Curran: Establishing An Implied Private Right Of Action Under The Commodity Exchange Act, Howard E. Hamann
Pepperdine Law Review
In the case of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, the United States Supreme Court held that there is an implied private right of action under the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended. As a result of this holding, a private party may maintain an action for damages caused by a violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. In this article, the author examines the Supreme Court's analysis and explores the future impact of the decision in light of the role the judiciary has in legislative matters.
Boiler Room Fraud: An Operational Plan Utilizing The Injunction Against Fraud Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. §1345 , Robert M. Twiss
Boiler Room Fraud: An Operational Plan Utilizing The Injunction Against Fraud Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. §1345 , Robert M. Twiss
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The New Uniform Statute Of Limitations For Federal Securities Fraud Actions: Its Evolution, Its Impact, And A Call For Reform, Anthony Michael Sabino
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.
Who Should Do The Math? Materiality Issues In Disclosures That Require Investors To Calculate The Bottom Line, Stefan J. Padfield
Who Should Do The Math? Materiality Issues In Disclosures That Require Investors To Calculate The Bottom Line, Stefan J. Padfield
Pepperdine Law Review
Corporations sometimes tread a fine line by disclosing the data necessary to calculate the bottom line impact of a particular set of facts, while failing to disclose the bottom line itself. For example, in 2002, Merck & Co., Inc., disclosed that one of its subsidiaries had recognized as revenue co-payments it never actually received, but failed to disclose that the total amount so recognized was $5.54 billion for the year 2001. When plaintiffs challenge such incomplete disclosure, courts routinely dismiss their claims based upon what I call the Simple Math rule. The Simple Math rule states that, assuming a material …