Authors

Amanda M. Rose

Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy

Publication Date

2015

Page Number

57

Keywords

securities fraud, class actions, deterrence, whistleblowing

Disciplines

Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics | Law | Securities Law

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s widely anticipated decision last term in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. did little to change the fundamental landscape of securities fraud litigation in the United States. Rule 10b-5 class actions premised on the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption of reliance may still be brought, although it is now clear that defendants may present evidence of lack of price distortion to rebut that presumption at the class certification stage. Halliburton does, however, raise a variety of new questions that will keep plaintiffs’ lawyers and defense counsel fighting for years to come. Determining the answers to these questions will be expensive, but ultimately of little social value. This contribution to the Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy’s symposium “Fraud on the Market after Halliburton II” explains why.

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.