insuranceneeds.in

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Monday, 17 January 2011

The Private Right of Action Under Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)5

Posted on 18:22 by Unknown
Sometimes it is worth reviewing the basics. How is it that an investor can bring a Section 10b-5 claim against a company and/or its officers and directors where Section 10(b) does not mention the right to sue?

15 U.S.C. §78j(b) provides that it is unlawful “[t]o use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered . . . any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.” In 1942, the SEC adopted Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5, which provides:

It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,

(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,

(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or

(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.

Neither the Section nor the Rule provides for a private right of action.

However, the United States Supreme Court provided for such a private right of action in a footnote in a 1971 case!

As the Court recently wrote in the Stoneridge decision,

"Though the text of the Securities Exchange Act does not provide for a private cause of action for §10(b) violations, the Court has found a right of action implied in the words of the statute and its implementing regulation. Superintendent of Ins. of N. Y. v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 404 U. S. 6, 13, n. 9 (1971). In a typical §10(b) private action a plaintiff must prove (1) a material misrepresenta- tion or omission by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a con- nection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation. See Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U. S. 336, 341–342 (2005)."

Thus, the private right of action, one of the most important claims litigated in federal courts today rests on a single footnote in a Supreme Court opinion.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to Facebook
Posted in Securities Law | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Corporate Law - LLC Statute Shields Member From Personal Liability
    Carollo v. Irwin, Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 4th Div. 2011 - Google Scholar : The Illinois Appellate Court recently decided the above-...
  • Contract Law - Lewitton v. ITA Software, Incorporated (Seventh Circuit 08-3725)
    The Seventh Circuit Holds that An Employer Breached An Employment Contract When It Blocked A Former Employee From Exercising Options To Purc...
  • Seventh Circuit Approves Securities Class Certification in Conseco Case
    The United States District Court for the Seventh District of Indiana approved class certification for a class of Conseco Investors. (Later C...
  • LLC Operating Agreement Defeats Unjust Enrichment and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims
    WOSS, LLC v. 218 ECKFORD, LLC, 102 AD 3d 860 - NY: Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. 2013 - Google Scholar : The plaintiff LLC was a member of the d...
  • Securities Arbitration - Stern v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (D. Ariz., No. CV-09-1229, October 16, 2009)
    COURT REJECTS SECURITIES ARBITRATION WHERE THE BROKER FAILED TO OBTAIN THE CLIENT'S SIGNATURE ON THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT Plaintiffs wh...
  • Shareholder Derivative Action Dismissed Because Plaintiff Failed To Make A Demand on the Board of Directors
    IN RE HURON CONSULTING GROUP, INC. v. HURON CONSULTING GROUP, INC., Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 2nd Div. 2012 - Google Scholar : This c...
  • Seventh Circuit Weighs In On Unjust Enrichment Debate
    Cleary v. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2011 - Google Scholar : The Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismis...
  • Illinois Supreme Court Rejects Account Stated Theory Where Invoices Were Disputed
    PATRICK ENGINEERING, INC. v. City of Naperville, Ill: Supreme Court 2012 - Google Scholar : An account stated can be an easy way to collect...
  • Securities Law - Wells Notice
    A Wells Notice advises a public company or a principal officer of a public company that the Securities & Exchange Commission is consider...
  • United States v. Ruehle, 09-50161 (9th Cir. 2009)
    CONFLICT THE TREACHEROUS PATH William Ruehle, the Chief Financial Officer of Broadcom, a California corporation, and Henry Nichols, a co-fou...

Categories

  • Business Advice
  • Collection Law
  • Consumer Rights
  • Contract Law
  • Corporate Law
  • Creditor Rights
  • Federal Arbitration Act
  • Federal Rules of Evidence
  • Fraud Claims
  • Fraudulent Transfer
  • Insurance Coverage Disputes
  • Internet Collection Scam
  • Limited Liability Company Issues
  • Litigation Issues
  • Moorman Doctrine
  • Mortgage Foreclosure
  • Noncompetition Agreements
  • Personal Jurisdiction
  • Securities Law
  • Shareholder Derivative Actions
  • Too Many Lawyers and Too Many Law Students
  • Uniform Commercial Code

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (27)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (5)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (4)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2012 (34)
    • ►  December (5)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ▼  2011 (40)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (5)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (5)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ▼  January (6)
      • Benson v. Stafford, Nos. 1-09-1361, 1-09-3173 (Con...
      • A Brief Review of Insider Trading Law - Rule 10b-5
      • The Private Right of Action Under Section 10(b) an...
      • What Is A Security Under The Federal Securities Laws?
      • Excellent Summary of Dodd-Frank Act
      • The Dodd-Frank Act Has Changed The Definition of a...
  • ►  2010 (36)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (4)
    • ►  February (4)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2009 (18)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (4)
  • ►  2008 (1)
    • ►  September (1)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile