Law Commons^™

The Unjustified Judicial Creation Of Class Certification Merits Trials In Securities, Michael J. Kaufman, John M. Wunderlich

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The class action device is vital to deterring securities fraud and remedying its victims, who almost never suffer losses sufficient to justify an individual suit. Nonetheless, the federal courts have begun to convert the class certification process into a premature trial on the merits, thereby precluding victims of securities fraud from pursuing otherwise valid claims of financial wrongdoing. In particular, in a series of important decisions, the federal courts have required plaintiffs to prove the essential elements of their securities fraud claims at the preliminary class certification stage.

This Article demonstrates why this trend should end. The judicial creation of …

Rule 10b-5 And The Rise Of The Unjust Enrichment Principle, James J. Park

Duke Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Riding The Fence On Collective Scienter: Allowing Plaintiffs To Clear The Pslra Pleading Hurdle, Heather F. Crow

Louisiana Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sec V. Talbot: The "Misappropriation-Plus" Theory, Kalina Laleva

Golden Gate University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Securities Law - Securities & Exchange Commission V. Rind: Sec Civil Enforcement Actions Are Not Subject To Statute Of Limitations, Joan E. Low

Golden Gate University Law Review

In Securities & Exchange Commission v. Rind, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, ruling on an issue of first impression, held that civil enforcement actions brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (hereinafter "SEC") are not subject to statute of limitations restrictions. Additionally, the court ruled that no right to a jury trial attaches in SEC civil enforcement actions seeking disgorgement of illicit profits.

Securities Law, Peter A. Mastromonaco

Golden Gate University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Losing The Loss Calculation: Toward A More Just Sentencing Regime In White-Collar Criminal Cases, Derick R. Vollrath

Duke Law Journal

The sentencing regime that governs white-collar criminal cases requires reform. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines recommend sentences that are generally too high and place a grossly disproportionate emphasis on the concept of "loss"-the dollar value of the harm that a court finds a white-collar criminal to have caused. This concept of loss is ill defined, and often artificial to the point of being arbitrary. Moreover, the loss calculation fails to adequately approximate a defendant's culpability, dwarfing traditionally relevant considerations such as the manner in which the defendant committed the crime and the defendant's motive for doing so. Fortunately, the Supreme Court …

The Implications Of Ifrs On The Functioning Of The Securities Antifraud Regime In The United States, Lance J. Phillips

Michigan Law Review

The United States is home to one of the most investor-friendly securities antifraud regimes in the world. Corporate misstatements that form the basis for a cause of action under one of the many antifraud provisions arise in a variety of contexts, an important one being as violations of U.S. generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). For several years, the Securities and Exchange Commission has been considering changing the standardized accounting practice in the United States from GAAP to International Financial Reporting Standards ("IFRS") to promote comparability between global investment opportunities. IFRS is a principles-based system of accounting, while GAAP is rules …

Italy’S Class Action Experiment, Roald Nashi

Cornell International Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Case For Semi-Strong-Form Corporate Scienter In Securities Fraud Actions, Paul B. Maslo

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

The mental state of scienter - intent to defraud - is a required element of a securities fraud claim. The scienter inquiry is fairly straightforward when the defendant is an individual. It is more complex when a corporate entity is involved because a corporation can only act through its agents; it has no mind of its own. This article compares the three approaches courts have used to impute scienter to corporate defendants in the securities fraud context and concludes by recommending the approach which strikes an appropriate balance between several dueling public policy concerns.

Deliberately Defrauding Investors: The Scope Of Liability Comment., Andrew R. Simank

St. Mary's Law Journal

Since the Enron debacle, shareholders have increasingly filed suit in state and federal courts to recoup financial losses resulting from fraudulent representations made by failing corporations. These shareholders have advanced common law misrepresentation claims against publicly traded companies for alleged fraudulent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings. Originally, the scope of liability for common law fraud was very narrow. This scope was later broadened in an attempt to provide protection to individuals commonly victimized by fraudulent behavior. Texas courts have gone to great lengths to ensure the “expectation of influencing conduct” requirement for common law fraud requires more than …

One Nation, Under Securities Fraud: The Third Circuit Notches A Win For Federalism In In Re Lord Abbett Mutual Funds Fee Litigation, Ethan H. Townsend

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.