Law Commons^™

Implied Private Right Of Action Under Section 17 Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934, Andrew Bor

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 created the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and vested it with broad regulatory and enforcement powers. While one of the purposes of the Act is to protect investors, the SEC has long recognized that it lacks the resources to fully accomplish that goal. Consequently, plaintiffs injured by actions in violation of the Act have sought remedies in the federal courts that have been willing to imply private rights of action under the securities laws. Recently, however, the Supreme Court has indicated that it will restrict the scope of remedies available to private litigants, thus …

Plaintiff's Standard Of Care After Hochfelder: Toward A Theory Of Causation, Robert P. Bryant

Vanderbilt Law Review

The extended debate by the Institute illustrates the logical and even emotional difficulty of dealing with the victim of an admittedly intentional deception who has acted foolishly in his own behalf and does not seem to deserve recovery. The crux of the controversy in the common law deceit cases mirrors that in the 10b-5 cases:should the victim have to investigate, and what might trigger an obligation to investigate? As this discussion demonstrates, tort principles provide some guidance. In deceit cases, the obligations placed on the plaintiff arise from the requirement that his reliance be justified. To the extent that his …

Recent Cases, Robert E. Banta, Oby T. Brewer, Iii, Cornelia A. Clark, I. Terry Currie, Douglas W. Ey, Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

Constitutional Law-First Amendment-School Authorities May Prohibit High School Student's Distribution of Sex Questionnaire to Prevent Possible Psychological Harm to Other Students Robert Edward Banta

Plaintiff, editor of a high school publication,' brought suit in federal court seeking an order compelling defendant school officials to allow the student publication to distribute a sex questionnaire,to students in the high school and to publish the results. Plaintiff claimed that defendants had not shown that the planned distribution would disrupt school activities and that, therefore, defendants'prohibition of the questionnaire violated 42 U.S.C. § 19831 and the first and fourteenth amendments. Pointing to potential psychological …