Securities Law Commons^™

Insider Trading & Unconstitutionally Complelled Speech, Steven J. Cleveland

Faculty Articles

The Supreme Court has recently weaponized the First Amendment to invalidate economic regulations. Consequently, the Court’s current analytical framework risks invalidating as unconstitutional certain speech compelled by Congress and the SEC to combat insider trading.

The government may compel speech to combat fraud, and many courts and commentators view insider trading as a fraud against the counterparty to the insider’s trade. Today, the government primarily resorts to Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and its implementing regulations, including Rule 10b-5, to combat insider trading. Those regulations prohibit deceptive conduct and do not directly compel speech. Interestingly, in …

Speech Without Speakers: Eliminating Artificial Barriers To Pleading Corporate Scienter In Securities Fraud Claims, Jennifer Ligansky

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

To successfully plead securities fraud claims under Rule 10b–5, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) requires that plaintiff-investors raise a “strong inference” that the defendant acted with scienter when issuing a false statement. But pleading scienter presents a challenging issue when the defendant is not a person, but an entity. When the defendant is a corporation, U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have adopted different approaches for determining whether the plaintiff has pleaded a strong inference of scienter. Some circuits hold that plaintiffs can raise a strong inference of corporate scienter only if the complaint identifies a speaker who knew …

Climate, Clarity, Controversy: A Constitutional, Statutory, And Policy Analysis Of The Sec’S Proposed Climate Disclosure Rules, Astoneia O. Moss

Emory Business Law Review

The burgeoning ESG movement has heightened investors’ interest in how companies steward the environment in which they operate; manage their human capital; and implement strategies to effectively manage and fulfill the desires of stakeholders. As a result, the SEC has sought to implement a mandatory climate-related disclosure regime to provide investors with public companies’ climate-related data to assist in the investment decision-making process. The proposed climate-related disclosure rule has faced criticism from businesses, politicians, and legal scholars on constitutional, statutory, and policy grounds. This Comment concludes that based on the statutory language of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities …

United We Stand, Divided We Fall: A Survey Of Current Public And Private Initiatives Addressing Board Diversity & A Proposed Sec Diversity Disclosure To Help Increase Board Diversity, Gabrielle Hunter

Emory Business Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Extraterritorial Reach Of Section 10(B): A Wolf Hunt Off Wall Street, Radley Gillis

Emory Law Journal

Born to combat the market effects of the Great Depression, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 protects American investors and maintains American confidence in the U.S. securities market. These objectives are largely accomplished through the imposition of liability from Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and the SEC’s Rule 10b-5. These federal laws impose civil and criminal penalties for domestic insider trading and securities fraud violations. Because Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 only apply domestically, when securities violations occur both within the United States and abroad, the reach of federal law becomes questionable, leaving federal courts with a complex …

Business Judgment Rule Or Due Diligence? How To Reduce Vicarious Liability For Spac Directors And Officers, Beau Duty

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Seventh Circuit Missed The Bullseye In Walleye, Peter Rosenberg

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

The structure of agency relationships in a transaction should have no bearing on the outcome when the only difference between two hypothetical transactions is solely the facial structure. In the same vein, investor protection is at the forefront of the securities laws; commonly used limiting language for market announcements should not be enough to absolve a company from fraudulent disclosures, e.g., “preliminary results.”

In Walleye Trading LLC v. AbbVie, Inc., a Seventh Circuit decision, the Court did the opposite and found that, based on pleadings at the motion to dismiss stage, an issuer is not liable for the misstatements …

Lucia Et Al. V. Securities And Exchange Commission: Opinion Of The Court, Elena Kagan

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Introduction To Lucia Et Al. V. Securities And Exchange Commission, Selina Malherbe

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Insider Trading Law And The Ambiguous Quest For Edge, A. C. Pritchard

Michigan Law Review

A review of Sheelah Kolhatkar, Black Edge.

The Shadow Of Free Enterprise: The Unconstitutionality Of The Securities & Exchange Commission’S Administrative Law Judges, Linda D. Jellum, Moses M. Tincher

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

Six years ago, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), for the first time giving the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) the power to seek monetary penalties through its in-house adjudication. The SEC already had the power to seek such penalties in federal court. With the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC’s enforcement division could now choose between an adjudication before an SEC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) or a civil action before an Article III judge. With this new choice, the SEC realized a significant home-court advantage. For example, in 2014, the SEC’s enforcement division prevailed …

Unintended Consequences: The Link Between Judge Friendly's Texas Gulf Sulphur Concurrence And Recent Supreme Court Decisions Misconstruing Rule 10b-5, Margaret V. Sachs

Scholarly Works

In his Texas Gulf Sulphur concurrence, Judge Henry J. Friendly coun- seled the federal district courts concerning the numerous pending satellite class actions that had been filed under Section 10(b) of the Securities Ex- change Act and Rule 10b-5. In the course of so doing, he argued forcefully that private Rule 10b-5 litigation should be curtailed. Finding his argument convincing, the Supreme Court issued four major decisions restricting the Rule between 1975 and 1994, while nonetheless expanding it in Basic Inc. v. Levinson. Congress responded by blessing both aspects of the Court’s jurisprudence – imposing its own set of …

Much Ado About Nothing: The Limits Of Liability For Item 303 Omissions And The Circuit Split That Never Was, Brian Currie

William & Mary Business Law Review

The implied private action for violations of SEC Rule 10b-5 has a contentious history. When plaintiffs base such actions on representations of forward-looking information, however, the stakes are even higher. Recently, the federal circuit courts revisited this divisive issue while deciding whether an omission from required disclosure of Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) of financial conditions and results of operations. The apparent disparity between the federal circuit courts has caused great consternation and uncertainty in the corporate legal sphere.

This Note will examine the origins and controversial history of Rule 10b-5 private actions, discuss the treatment of MD&A omissions throughout …

Insider Trading Flaw: Toward A Fraud-On-The-Market Theory And Beyond, Kenneth R. Davis

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Judicial Role In Extraterritorial Application Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934: Vesco, William A. Aileo

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Out On A Limb: Support For A Limited Version Of Collective Scienter, Matt Mccabe

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues that the correct approach to imputing scienter to a corporation by means of the collective scienter theory is through the absurdity analysis taken by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Rebutting The Fraud On The Market Presumption In Securities Fraud Class Actions: Halliburton Ii Opens The Door, Victor E. Schwartz, Christopher E. Appel

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

In Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Halliburton II), the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of the “fraud on the market” presumption underlying securities fraud class action litigation. This presumption is vital to bringing suits as class actions because it excuses plaintiffs from proving individual reliance on an alleged corporate misstatement on the theory that any public statements made by the company are incorporated into its stock price and consequently relied upon by all investors. Thus, the Court’s decision to uphold the validity of the presumption has been hailed as a significant victory for those …

Private Cause Of Action Under Section 17(A) Of Securities Exchange Act Of 1934; Doctrine Of Implication; Touche Ross V. Redington, James L. Miller

Akron Law Review

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is principally designed to protect investors through regulation of securities transactions on the organized exchanges and in the over-the-counter markets. In addition to the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission as its leading enforcement mechanism, the 1934 Act provides for criminal penalties and, in certain instances, private causes of action for individuals who incur damage by others' violations of the Act. However, courts will often imply a civil cause of action for an injured party despite the absence of express statutory authorization.3 Subsequent judicial attempts to determine when supplemental civil relief can or …

Sec V. Bauer: If The Glove Fits, It's Insider Trading, Kramer Ortman

Catholic University Law Review

Until SEC v. Bauer, insider trading has never been applied within the context of an open-ended mutual fund. In alleging insider trading against Jilaine Bauer, an account executive of a mutual fund, the SEC originally won summary judgment; however, the case on appeal saw the SEC drop its original theory, the classical theory of insider trading, in favor of the alternative misappropriation theory. This Note argues that the misappropriation theory applies in the context of open-ended mutual funds by recognizing that the policy reasons underlying the prohibitions against insider trading are centered on the principles of fairness, market integrity, …

Missing The Mark: Partial Resolution Of The Application Of Equitable Tolling To Section 16(B) Claims In Credit Suisse Securities (Usa) Llc V. Simmonds, Lydia Park

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

The Two Faces Of Janus: The Jurisprudential Past And New Beginning Of Rule 10b-5, John Patrick Clayton

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and its implementing Rule 10b-5 are the primary antifraud provisions for both private and public enforcement of the federal securities laws. Neither the statute nor the rule expressly provides for a private right of action, but federal courts have long recognized such an implied right, and the Securities and Exchange Commission has supported the implied private right of action as a “necessary supplement” to its own efforts. However, after a decade of applying an expansive interpretation to Section 10(b), in the early 1970s the U.S. Supreme Court began to narrowly interpret this implied …

Taking Section 10(B) Seriously: Criminal Enforcement Of Sec Rules, Steve Thel

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has determined the scope of federal securities laws in a series of cases in which it has read section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act as either prohibiting certain misconduct or authorizing the SEC to regulate that conduct and only that conduct. Judging by the language, structure and history of the Exchange Act, the Court’s reading is wrong. Section 10(b) does not prohibit anything, and it neither grants the SEC rulemaking power nor limits the rulemaking power granted to the SEC elsewhere in the Exchange Act. Instead, section 10(b) simply triggers criminal sanctions for certain rule violations. …

Securities Violations In 140 Characters Or Less: Social Media And Its Growing Impact On The Securities Industry, Kevin Etzel

Touro Law Review

As social media continues its rapid ascent, the law must be able to keep pace. The securities industry is where one area that must keep pace. This Comment demonstrates the drastic effects, both positive and negative, that social media has on securities regulation.

Inequities In Corporate And Securities Law: Disabling The Exploitative Chinese Corporation And Charting A Path To International Commercial Accountability, Jonathan P. Schmidt

San Diego International Law Journal

This article seeks to illuminate these issues and provide a roadmap for the U.S. federal and state legislatures to come together to protect the U.S. investor from the type of accounting fraud and stock misinformation that was the impetus behind enacting the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. First, this article will discuss the legal backdrop and legislative policy behind U.S. laws such as SOX and its enforcement mechanisms, and the ability for shareholders to bring securities class action derivative actions for financial fraud. This article will also discuss trade secrets laws, criminal extradition treaties, international enforcement of judgments, and elucidate the …

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.

A Bright Idea: A Bright-Line Test For Extraterritoriality In F-Cubed Securities Fraud Private Causes Of Action, Jennifer Mitchell Coupland

Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business

Whether a foreign or American claimant has a private right of action in so-called ―Foreign-Cubed‖ or ―Foreign-Squared‖ claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5 has been the subject of much debate among U.S. courts, Congress, and the international community. Historically, these cases have been heard in the United States if the conduct had a substantial effect in the United States or on U.S. citizens (the effects test), or if the fraudulent or wrongful conduct occurred in the United States (the conduct test). However, in June 2010, …

Securities Law And Antitrust Law: Two Legal Titans Clash Before The United States Supreme Court In Credit Suisse Securities V. Billing, Stacey Sheely Chubbuck

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Issuer Choice Debate, Merritt B. Fox

Faculty Scholarship

This article responds to Professor Romano’s piece in this issue. It concerns our ongoing debate with regard to the desirability of permitting issuers to choose the securities regulation regime by which they are bound. Romano favors issuer choice, arguing that it would result in jurisdictional competition to offer issuers share value maximizing regulations. I, in contrast, believe that abandoning the current mandatory system of federal securities disclosure would likely lower, not increase, U.S. welfare. Each issuer, I argue, would select a regime requiring a level of disclosure less than is socially optimal because its private costs of disclosure would be …

Introduction (Symposium: Mutual Fund Regulation In The Next Millennium), Jeffrey J. Haas

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.