Demystifying causation in fraud-on-the-market actions

被引:2
作者
Fox, MB [1 ]
机构
[1] Columbia Univ, Sch Law, New York, NY 10027 USA
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
D9 [法律]; DF [法律];
学科分类号
0301 ;
摘要
What must an investor who purchases shares on the open market of an issuer that has made a positive, materially false misstatement in violation of Rule 10b-5 show to establish causation in a "fraud-on-the-market" action for damages? Confusion has arisen in the courts concerning this question because they have analyzed the matter in terms of the twin concepts of "transaction causation" and "loss causation." They initially developed these concepts as a way of deciding causation in actions based on a showing of traditional reliance. Fraud-on-the-market actions involve a fundamentally different kind of causal connection between the defendant's misstatement and the plaintiffs injury as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Basic v. Levinson. Because of this fundamental difference in causal connection, the twin concepts of transaction causation and loss causation simply do not make sense in, fraud-on-the-market actions. The focus in fraud-on-the-market cases should be instead on developing standards for what the plaintiff must plead and prove, and the acceptable forms of evidence, in order to establish that the defendant's misstatement inflated the price at the time of purchase. Analyzing the problem from the ex ante perspective of the economics-based approach to securities law reveals that these are the real issues underlying the causation cases coming before the courts.
引用
收藏
页码:507 / +
页数:28
相关论文
共 6 条
  • [1] Coffee JC, 2005, BUS LAWYER, V60, P533
  • [2] FISCHEL DR, 1982, BUS LAWYER, V38, P1
  • [3] KAUFMAN MJ, 2003, SECURITIES LITIGATIO
  • [4] LOSS L, 1998, SECUR REGUL, V9, P4413
  • [5] THOMPSON RB, 1984, VANDERBILT LAW REV, V37, P349
  • [6] THOMPSON RB, 1984, VANDERBILT LAW REV, V37, P361