Search Results for ‘"fraud on the market"’

The Court’s missed opportunity in securities law

In yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, the Court unanimously agreed to narrow procedural relief for the corporate defendant, but declined 6-3 to revisit its 1988 mistake in creating from whole cloth the “fraud on the market” theory in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson. I have more at Cato at Liberty. Earlier on Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund here. More: Kevin LaCroix, & welcome Stephen Bainbridge, SCOTUSBlog readers.

More: Alden Abbott and Thom Lambert at Truth on the Market; Bainbridge with roundup of commentary; Beck, Drug & Device Law, on implications for concept of reliance in that area.

Banking and finance roundup

Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.: SCOTUS considers shareholder class actions

Andrew Grossman reports on yesterday’s oral argument in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, which “may be the biggest business case of the term. …Basic [Basic v. Levinson, 1988, in which the Court dispensed with the reliance requirement in favor of the “fraud on the market” theory] came at the tail-end of the Court’s decades-long experiment in policymaking by creating and defining the contours of civil actions. … The chief barrier to overturning Basic may not be its logic, its wisdom, or even its correctness as a matter of law, but instead stare decisis.” Earlier here, here, here, and here.

More: Kaye Scholer (possible “midway position” with impact on stock price considered at stage of class certification).

Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup

  • SCOTUS to hear case of Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, First Amendment challenge to state laws regulating truth of political speech [IJ/Cato amicus cert brief]
  • Groups of law professors file amicus briefs in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. arguing that retreat from “fraud on the market” theory is consistent with modern scholarship on capital market efficiency [John Elwood] and sound statutory construction [Elwood, Bainbridge]
  • Behind the Michigan affirmative action plan in Schuette, including colorful background of litigant BAMN (“By Any Means Necessary”) [Gail Heriot, Federalist Society “Engage”]
  • Court dismisses Mulhall v. UNITE HERE (challenge to employer cooperation agreement with union as “thing of value”) as improvidently granted [Jack Goldsmith, On Labor, earlier]
  • Affordable Care Act saga has taken toll on rule of law [Timothy and Christina Sandefur, Regulation]
  • Lol-worthy new Twitter account, @clickbaitSCOTUS, with content like “The nine words no appellate advocate wants to read” [re: Madigan v. Levin]
  • Drug War vs. Constitution at Supreme Court, 1928: Drug War won by only one vote and you might not predict who wrote the most impassioned dissent [my Cato post]

Banking and finance roundup

  • Presumed-reliance (“fraud on the market”) theories, which SCOTUS is likely to reconsider in Halliburton, aren’t just confined to securities litigation, but crop up in various other areas of litigation including third-party payer drug suits [Beck, Drug and Device Law; more background]
  • Why restrict alienability?, pt. CLXXI: Neil Sobol, “Protecting Consumers from Zombie-Debt Collectors” [NMLR/SSRN]
  • Will Congress step in to curtail fad for eminent domain municipal seizure of mortgages? [Kevin Funnell, earlier here and here]
  • More commentary on J.P. Morgan settlement [Daniel Fisher, Michael Greve, earlier here, here, and here]
  • Judge Jed Rakoff: Why have no high level execs been prosecuted over financial crisis? [Columbia Law School Blue Sky Blog]
  • Treasury Department’s Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) turns its sights to investment advisers. The logic being…? [Louise Bennetts, Cato/PJ Media]
  • Property-casualty insurer association challenges new HUD disparate-impact rules [Cook County Record]

Class action roundup

  • Whichever way high court rules in Hood v. AU Optronics, new Fifth Circuit decision will fuel parens patriae actions by AGs in state courts [Alison Frankel, earlier]
  • Justice Alito blasts federal district judge Harold Baer for insisting on race quotas for class action lawyers [Michael Greve/Liberty Law, Tom Goldstein/SCOTUSBlog]
  • “Unfortunately, even if SCOTUS does away with fraud on the market, plaintiff lawyers will still bring omission cases” [Bainbridge, earlier]
  • Ted Frank’s adventures, as documented at Point of Law [Pampers Dry Max (earlier), L’Oreal salon hair products, Korean Air, Wyeth]
  • Does it cost too much to provide class action defendants with due process? [Andrew Trask] Related on Mark Moller’s work [same] Should class actions be understood as creating trusts? [same]
  • Avery v. State Farm billion-dollar aftermarket-parts class action seeks RICO resuscitation, in Monty Python echo [Chamber-backed Madison County Record]
  • If you didn’t know distinguished proceduralist Arthur Miller as a Milbergian, you might detect it from his writing [Trask]

Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup