Securities Law Commons^™

The Sitting Ducks Of Securities Class Action Litigation: Bio-Pharmas And The Need For Improved Evaluation Of Scientific Data, Stuart R. Cohn, Erin M. Swick

UF Law Faculty Publications

Rule 10b-5, a powerful weapon against any publicly-listed company whose share price drops on adverse news, is particularly skewed against pharmaceutical and other bio-technology companies (bio-pharmas). It is not a coincidence that there is a disproportionate number of class actions filed against bio-pharmas. The volume and complexity of data underlying most bio-pharma cases create enormous outcome uncertainties, settlement pressures, and potentially huge contingent liabilities over substantial periods of time. The vulnerability and risks that bio-pharmas face in Rule 10b-5 class actions are unique among all publicly-traded industries, yet many cases proceed along traditional grounds without courts employing either their statutory …

When The Corporate Luminary Becomes Seriously Ill: When Is A Corporation Obligated To Disclose That Illness And Should The Securities And Exchange Commission Adopt A Rule Requiring Disclosure?, Allan Horwich

Faculty Working Papers

Recent speculation and rumors about the health of senior corporate executives of public companies (most notably Steve Jobs of Apple Inc.) and the advanced age of many leaders in the corporate community prompt a consideration of when, if at all, there must be public disclosure of the ill health of a person whose involvement in a corporation is perceived as vital to the continued financial success or independence of that company. This Article addresses the application of various disclosure requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to facts regarding the health of a corporate "luminary." An adverse development in …

Retail Investor Remedies Under Rule 10b-5, O'Hare Jennifer

Faculty Publications

This paper assesses the private remedies available under Rule 10b-5 to retail investors who have been defrauded by false corporate disclosures. After comparing the treatment received by retail investors to the treatment received by institutional investors, I identify several areas in which the federal securities laws disfavor retail investors who have been defrauded by false corporate disclosures, including the creation of a two-tiered system of investor remedies for securities fraud. Institutional investors are permitted to pick and choose which law and forum offers them the most attractive chance for recovery, but retail investors typically do not have this opportunity. They …

The Missing Link Between Insider Trading And Securities Fraud, Richard A. Booth

Faculty Scholarship

In a recent article, I argued that diversified investors - the vast majority of investors - would prefer that securities fraud class actions under the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 be dismissed in the absence of insider trading or similar offenses during the fraud period. See Richard A. Booth, The End of the Securities Fraud Class Action as We Know It, 4 Berk. Bus. L. J. 1 (2007), http://ssrn.com/abstract=683197. In this article, I draw on the classic case, SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulfur Company, to show that the federal courts originally viewed securities fraud as inextricably connected to insider trading …

Darn Your Sox: Exploring Retroactive Application Of Extended Statutes Of Limitation And Repose In Securities Fraud Litigation, Sarah J. Greenberg

ExpressO

Unintended and unanticipated consequences of the 2002 enactment of Sarbanes Oxley are only recently making themselves known. One of these consequences includes differing interpretations of the section of Act which extends the statute of limitations for Sec. 10(b) securities fraud actions. The remedial nature and plain language of the Act call for retroactive application of the extended limitations period to revive previously time barred claims. The SEC has argued vigorously for such an interpretation, but, unfortunately, the majority of circuit courts analyzing the matter oppose this interpretation.

In my piece, Darn Your SOX: Exploring Retroactive Application of Extended Statutes of …

Merrill Lynch V. Dabit: Federal Preemption Of Holders' Class Actions, Mark J. Loewenstein

Publications

No abstract provided.

After Dura: Causation In Fraud-On-The-Market Actions, 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 lob-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 defendants' bar equally enthusiastically hailed it as "a …

Reforming The Securities Class Action: On Deterrence And Its Implementation, John C. Coffee Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

Securities class actions impose enormous penalties, but they achieve little compensation and only limited deterrence. This is because of a basic circularity underlying the securities class action: When damages are imposed on the corporation, they essentially fall on diversified shareholders, thereby producing mainly pocket-shifting wealth transfers among shareholders. The current equilibrium benefits corporate insiders, insurers, and plaintiffs' attorneys, but not investors. The appropriate answer to this problem is not to abandon securities litigation, but to shift the incidence of its penalties so that, in the secondary market context, they fall less on the corporation and more on those actors who …

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 …

Causation By Presumption? Why The Supreme Court Should Reject Phantom Losses And Reverse Broudo, John C. Coffee Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

Over a quarter of a century ago, Judge Henry Friendly coined the term "fraud by hindsight" in upholding the dismissal of a proposed securities class action. As he explained, it was too simple to look backward with full knowledge of actual events and allege what should have been earlier disclosed by a public corporation in its Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings. Because hindsight has twenty/twenty vision, plaintiffs could not fairly "seize [] upon disclosures" in later reports, he ruled, to show what defendants should have disclosed earlier.

Today, a parallel concept – "causation by presumption" – is before the …

The Corporation As Insider Trader, Mark J. Loewenstein, William K.S. Wang

Publications

With regard to issuer purchases, some of the traditional policy rationales against insider trading do not apply or apply with less force. Nevertheless, courts, commentators, and the SEC have all stated or assumed that a public corporation violates rule 10b-5 by buying its own shares in the market based on material, nonpublic information. In rule 10b-5 cases involving face-to-face transactions, several circuit courts have ruled that the company may not purchase its own stock based on material information not known to the seller. No good reason exists not to apply these precedents to stock market trades by issuers, especially because …

The Supreme Court, Rule 10b-5, And The Federalization Of Corporate Law, Mark J. Loewenstein

Publications

This Article examines Supreme Court jurisprudence since 1997 under the federal securities laws in light of the Court's earlier securities law decisions and in light of its recent decisions construing the Constitution and federal statutes as they relate to the regulation of business. These post-1977 cases strongly suggest that the much-heralded new federalism philosophy of the Supreme Court is not a factor in securities law cases or in business cases generally. Indeed, the opposite seems to be the case. In this context, new federalism cases appear to be an anomaly, with the reality being that the Court is still as …

Missing The Mark: Nasd Rule 2711 And Nyse Rule 472 Mistakenly Emphasize Disclosure Rather Than Amending The Pleading Requirements Of Pslra, James J. Barney

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Aligning Incentives With Equity: Employee Stock Options And Rule 10b-5, Matthew T. Bodie

All Faculty Scholarship

When the Internet boom was in full swing and the stock markets skyrocketed to new levels, companies new and old used stock options to attract and retain employees. Implicit in those options was the promise that employees could participate in the growth of a company's value. However, as the scandals involving WorldCom, Enron, and Global Crossing demonstrate, corporate managers were not always honest with employees or public investors about the company's true value. Public investors can seek civil remedies for securities fraud through a private action under the Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5. The Rule's purchase or sale requirement, …

The Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. V. United International Holdings, Inc.: The Supreme Court Breaks Old Ground, Mark J. Loewenstein

Publications

This article analyzes the Supreme Court's decision to decide only one federal securities law case, The Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. v. United International Holdings, Inc. On the face of it, the Court simply affirmed long-standing, uncontroversial tenets of Rule 10b-5. However, the article provides different explanations to the Court's decision.

Defining The Duty: Attorneys' Obligations Under Rule 10b-5, Cynthia A. Bedrick

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The "Possession Vs. Use" Debate In The Context Of Securities Trading By Traditional Insiders: Why Silence Can Never Be Golden, Donna M. Nagy

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Traditional insiders occupy a very special position in the scheme of federal securities regulation. However, in a misguided quest for a single answer to the possession vs. use debate, courts, commentators, and even the SEC have tended to marginalize the significant differences between traditional insiders and other securities traders who may possess material nonpublic information. In the aftermath of the circuit court decisions in United States v. Smith and Securities and Exchange Commission v. Adler, courts and the SEC should follow a categorical approach in addressing the possession vs. use question, and should recognize that silence can never be golden …

Securities Market And Securities Regulations In China, Fengxia Dai

LLM Theses and Essays

China is a large developing country with a socialist ideology that is currently undergoing a period of reform and transformation. In December 1990, China opened its first national securities market - the Shanghai Securities Exchange. This was soon followed in November 1991 by the first special shares denominated in foreign currencies and sold only to overseas investors. These important steps in the development of China’s securities industry indicate commitment by Chinese authorities to the two key components of the nation’s economic reform program - economic systemic reform, and opening to the outside world. China’s securities market and securities regulations contain …

The Misappropriation Theory Of Insider Trading: Its Past, Present, And Future, Troy Cichos

Seattle University Law Review

In this Comment, I discuss the evolution and current application of the misappropriation theory of insider trading and argue that it simply strays too far from the fraud tenets of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. A thorough understanding of the misappropriation theory is possible only if one understands how it diverges from the classic theory of insider trading. Therefore, in Section II, I discuss the evolution and present doctrine of classic insider trading. The discussion in this Section focuses on major cases in the development of this theory. Section III presents the misappropriation theory of insider trading. Section III focuses …

Rule 10b-5 Liability For Front-Running: Adding A New Dimension To The Money Game, David M. Bovi

St. Thomas Law Review

In the financial arena, the name of the game is money--make it now, make it fast, make a lot. To some players in this financial game, the question of whether to play fairly or unfairly, legally or illegally, is not debated. Their only issue of concern is how much, how fast, and what are the chances of being caught. Throughout history, this attitude has fostered the creation of a countless number of fraudulent schemes and contrivances with the sole purpose of making fast and easy money, regardless of the consequences to other players in the game. One particular fraudulent scheme, …

Triggering One-Year Limitations On Section 10(B) And Rule 10b-5 Actions: Actual Or Inquiry Discovery, Charles Benjamin Nutley

San Diego Law Review

Securities fraud lawsuits under Rule 10b-5 are governed by the one and three year limitative period in section 9(e) of the Securities Exchange Act. The one-year period is triggered by the plaintiff's discovery of the facts constituting the violation. Courts differ, however, on the correct discovery standard for section 9(e). This Comment addresses whether courts should apply an inquiry notice standard or an actual notice standard to trigger the one-year limitative period.

Are Local Governments Liable Under Rule 10b-5? Textualism And Its Limits, Margaret V. Sachs

Scholarly Works

Whether state and local governments can be sued for damages is a question that cuts across subject-area boundaries. This question, which has long confounded courts in the areas of both antitrust and civil rightslaw, now has arisen in a new area: section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5. The thesis of this Article is that a local government is an inappropriate rule 10b-5 defendant, regardless of whether it is the issuer of the securities in question or an alleged participant in a scheme involving corporate securities. The only appropriate rule 10b-5 defendants are private actors.

Securities: Is "Any Note" Really A "Security"? Supreme Court Says "No" In Reves, John Scribner

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Looking A Gift Of Stock In The Mouth: Donative Transfers And Rule 10b-5, Carol J. Sulcoski

Michigan Law Review

This Note explores whether a gift of stock can constitute a "sale" for the purposes of section lO(b) of the 1934 Act and rule lOb-5 promulgated thereunder. Part I reviews the relevant 1934 Act provisions, and concludes that although the statute's language and legislative history do not mention gifts of stock as such, they support the inclusion of gifts within the statute's scope. Part II examines a limited line of cases holding that a bona fide charitable gift is not a sale under section 16(b) of the 1934 Act. This Part concludes that section 16(b) cases are not dispositive of …

Strange Case Of Fraud On The Market: A Label In Search Of A Theory, Barbara Black

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Part I of this Article will briefly discuss fraud on the market as a label attached to different factual situations, analyzing Blackie v. Barrack and Shores v. Sklar as two paradigms of the label's application. Part II will discuss the Supreme Court's recent decision in Basic. It concludes that the Court did not analyze definitively fraud on the market, thus leaving open the possibility that a pure causation approach is an appropriate explanation of fraud on the market. The treatment and application of fraud on the market in the lower courts is next analyzed in three groups: those applying Blackie, …

Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction For Implied Rule 10b-5 Actions: The Emperor Has No Clothes, Margaret V. Sachs

Scholarly Works

Courts have long assumed the existence of exclusive federal jurisdiction over private actions implied from section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5. The result is not only to restrict forum choice for rule 10b-5 claimants but also to generate a host of questions concerning the extent of federal authority: whether rule 10b-5 actions are exempt from the claim and issue preclusive effects of state court decisions; whether state courts can hear defenses and state-created claims that involve rule 10b-5; and whether federal courts can stay rule 10b-5 actions in deference to state court litigation. In …

The Second Circuit's Approach To The "In Connection With" Requirement Of Rule 10b-5, Barbara Black

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This Commentary examines the evolution of the "in connection with" requirement within the Second Circuit, focusing on cases decided in the 1985-86 term. It attempts to illustrate the direction the Circuit has taken in dealing with complex issues of securities fraud.

Application Of Respondeat Superior Principles To Securities Fraud Claims Under The Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico), Barbara Black

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Part I of this article outlines RICO's statutory scheme, reviews the common law doctrines under which a principal may be liable for the acts of its agent and the policies behind these doctrines, and examines RICO decisions raising the issue of vicarious liability. Part II examines non-RICO federal cases and identifies relevant factors determining the appropriateness of applying respondeat superior and agency principles to federal statutes. Finally, Part III analyzes the specific provisions of RICO in light of the factors identified in Part II. The article concludes that these factors do not support the imposition of liability on defendants other …

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 …

Implied Contribution Under The Federal Securities Laws: A Reassessment, Mark J. Loewenstein

Publications

No abstract provided.