Plaintiffs commonly bring two distinct types of claims under Section 1(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: 1) claims of material misrepresentations or omissions; and 2) claims of trade-based market manipulation. Despite the distinctive features of the two types of claims, courts have tended to treat them identically when applying the “fraud on the market” doctrine. In particular, courts have required both types of plaintiffs to make identical showings that the relevant security traded in an “efficient market” in order to gain a presumption of reliance. The reasons for requiring such a showing by plaintiffs in a misrepresentation case are, however, inapplicable in market manipulation cases. Plaintiffs alleging market manipulation shou...
This spring, the Supreme Court will hear Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, the most important secur...
In its recent Halliburton decision, the Supreme Court focused on the role of price distortion in me...
In Mirkin v. Wasserman, the California Supreme Court refused to apply the fraud-on-the-market theo...
Plaintiffs commonly bring two distinct types of claims under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchang...
The fraud-on-the-market doctrine adopted in Basic Inc. v. Levinson (“Basic”) allows the plaintiff su...
No coherent doctrinal statement exists for calculating open-market damages for securities fraud cl...
An issuer makes a positive, material misstatement in violation of Rule 10b-5. What must an investor ...
Plaintiffs in securities fraud class actions must prove that defendants’ misconduct caused the inves...
With Amgen, the Supreme Court’s majority once again holds that inquiry into the alleged market impac...
In 1988, in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson,1 (Basic), the United States Supreme Court adopted the fraud on ...
Part I of this Article will briefly discuss fraud on the market as a label attached to different fac...
The still-developing fraud on the market theory is the primary method by which securities fraud plai...
The definition of manipulation has recently become a live issue in the context of mergers, tender of...
In Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Halliburton II), the United States Supreme Court rea...
Following recent judgement of the Supreme Court of US (June 2014), several commentators had declared...
This spring, the Supreme Court will hear Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, the most important secur...
In its recent Halliburton decision, the Supreme Court focused on the role of price distortion in me...
In Mirkin v. Wasserman, the California Supreme Court refused to apply the fraud-on-the-market theo...
Plaintiffs commonly bring two distinct types of claims under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchang...
The fraud-on-the-market doctrine adopted in Basic Inc. v. Levinson (“Basic”) allows the plaintiff su...
No coherent doctrinal statement exists for calculating open-market damages for securities fraud cl...
An issuer makes a positive, material misstatement in violation of Rule 10b-5. What must an investor ...
Plaintiffs in securities fraud class actions must prove that defendants’ misconduct caused the inves...
With Amgen, the Supreme Court’s majority once again holds that inquiry into the alleged market impac...
In 1988, in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson,1 (Basic), the United States Supreme Court adopted the fraud on ...
Part I of this Article will briefly discuss fraud on the market as a label attached to different fac...
The still-developing fraud on the market theory is the primary method by which securities fraud plai...
The definition of manipulation has recently become a live issue in the context of mergers, tender of...
In Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Halliburton II), the United States Supreme Court rea...
Following recent judgement of the Supreme Court of US (June 2014), several commentators had declared...
This spring, the Supreme Court will hear Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, the most important secur...
In its recent Halliburton decision, the Supreme Court focused on the role of price distortion in me...
In Mirkin v. Wasserman, the California Supreme Court refused to apply the fraud-on-the-market theo...