Theories of Causal Nexus in Rule 10b-5 Claims: A Critical Reassessment
By:
References
- Bebchuk, Lucian A., and Ferrell, Allen. “Rethinking Basic.” The Business Lawyer 69, no. 3 (2014): 671–697.
- Bhagat, Sanjai and Romano, Roberta. “Event Studies and the Law: Part II: Empirical Studies of Corporate Law.” American Law and Economics Review 4, no. 2 (2002): 380–423. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/4.2.380
- Buckberg, Elaine. “Do Courts Count Cammer Factors?” (Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, 23 August 2012) https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/08/23/do-courts-count-cammer-factors/
- Carney, William J. “The Limits of the Fraud on the Market Doctrine.” The Business Lawyer 44, no. 4 (1989): 1,259–1,292.
- Cassidy, Kathleen. “Validity of the Fraud-Created-the-Market Theory of Establishing Reliance in a Private Action for Damages Under Rule 10b-5.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 80, no. 3 (2012): 1,025–1,048.
- Coffee Jr., John C. “After the Fraud on the Market Doctrine: What Should Replace It?” Columbia Law School's Blog on Corporations and the Capital Markets. 21 January 2014. https://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2014/01/21/after-the-fraud-on-the-market-doctrine-what-should-replace-it/
- Dennin, Peter J. “Which Came First, the Fraud or the Market: Is the Fraud-Created-the-Market Theory Valid under Rule 10b-5.” Fordham Law Review 69, no. 6 (2001): 2,611–2,654.
- Eisenhofer, Jay W., Jarvis, Geoffrey C., and Banko, James R. “Securities Fraud, Stock Price Valuation, and Loss Causation: Toward a Corporate Finance-Based Theory of Loss Causation.” The Business Lawyer 59, no. 4 (2004): 1,419–1,445.
- Fama, Eugene F. “Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work.” Journal of Finance 25, no. 2 (1970): 383–417. https://doi.org/10.2307/2325486
- Finkelstein, Jared T. “Rule 10b-5 Damage Computation: Application of Finance Theory to Determine Net Economic Loss.” Fordham Law Review 51, no. 5 (1983): 838–870.
- Fisch, Jill E. “The Trouble with Basic: Price Distortion After Halliburton.” Washington University Law Review 90, no. 3 (2013): 895–932.
- Fisch, Jill E. Brief to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Securities Law Scholars as Amicus Curiae in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317 (filed February 4, 2014).
- Fox, Merritt B. “Understanding Dura.” The Business Lawyer 60, no. 4 (2005): 1,547–1,576.
- Fox, Merritt B. “Halliburton II: What It's All About,” Journal of Financial Regulation 1, no. 1 (2015): 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1093/jfr/fju004
- Grundfest, Joseph A. “Damages and Reliance under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.” The Business Lawyer 69, no. 2 (2014): 307–392.
- Helms, Brandon C. “The Supreme Court's Dura Decision Unfortunately Secures a Brighter Future for 10b-5 Defendants.” DePaul Law Review 56, no. 1 (2006): 189–222.
- Isaacson, Eric A. “The Roberts Court and Securities Class Actions: Reaffirming Basic Principles.” Akron Law Review 48, no. 4 (2015): 923–977.
- Karmel, Roberta S. “When Should Investor Reliance Be Presumed in Securities Class Actions?” The Business Lawyer 63, no. 1 (2007): 25–54.
- Karp, Brad S. “Supreme Court Holds ‘Loss Causation’ Not a Prerequisite to Class Certification in Fraud Cases” (Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, 9 June 2011). https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/06/09/supreme-court-holds-loss-causation-not-a-prerequisite-to-class-certification-in-fraud-cases/
- Kaufman, Michael J., and Wunderlich, John M. “Fraud Created the Market.” Alabama Law Review 63, no. 2 (2012): 275–320.
- Langevoort, Donald C. “Basic at Twenty: Rethinking Fraud on the Market.” Wisconsin Law Review 2009, no. 2 (2009): 151–198.
- Langevoort, Donald C. “Reading Stoneridge Carefully: A Duty-Based Approach to Reliance and Third-Party Liability Under Rule 10b-5.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 158, no. 7 (2010): 2,125–2,171. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1470940
- Malkiel, Burton G. “The Efficient Market Hypothesis and Its Critics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17, no. 1 (2003): 59–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/089533003321164958
- Molony, Thomas J. “Making Solid Connection: A New Look at Rule 10b-5's Transactional Nexus Requirement.” Santa Clara Law Review 53, no. 3 (2014): 767–815.
- Mustokoff, Matthew L., and Mazzeo, Margaret E. “Loss Causation on Trial in Rule 10B-5 Litigation: A Decade After Dura.” Rutgers University Law Review 70, no. 1 (2017): 175–219.
- Note. “The Fraud-on-the-Market Theory.” Harvard Law Review 95, no. 5 (1982): 1,143–1,161. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340576
- Seligman, Joel. “The Merits Do Matter: A Comment on Professor Grundfest's Disimplying Private Rights of Action under the Federal Securities Laws: The Commission's Authority.” Harvard Law Review 108, no. 2 (1994): 438–457. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341897
- Thorsen, Madge S., Kaplan, Richard A., and Hakala, Scott. “Rediscovering the Economics of Loss Causation.” Journal of Business and Securities Law 6, no. 1–2 (2006): 93–125.
- Thorson, Ryan S. “Securities Law – The Artificially Inflation Purchase Price Theory: An Economically Sound Yet Legally Insufficient Method of Pleading and Proving Loss Causation, Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo.” Wyoming Law Review 6, no. 2 (2006): 623–656.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/law-2022-0002 | Journal eISSN: 2720-1279
Language: English
Page range: 5 - 19
Published on: Dec 31, 2022
Published by: Polish Economic Security Foundation. Institute for Legal and Economic Dialogue and Analysis
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 times per year
Keywords:
Related subjects:
© 2022 Min-woo Kang, published by Polish Economic Security Foundation. Institute for Legal and Economic Dialogue and Analysis
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.