The Overused and Under-Defined Notion of 'Material' in Securities Law

D. Oesterle
{"title":"The Overused and Under-Defined Notion of 'Material' in Securities Law","authors":"D. Oesterle","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1772725","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Core doctrine in federal securities law rests on a single word - \"material.\" Federal statutes and agency anti-fraud rules and disclosure requirements contain the term as an essential qualifier and identifier. \"Facts\" or \"information\" must be \"material\" before a legal obligation to disclose attaches. In other words, the term material has an unrivaled position in the center of all of securities law and agency rules and court decisions applying the term necessarily establish the fundamental scope and bite of securities regulation. A study of close to eight hundred cases in which a federal court’s applies the term to specific facts, however, finds that the case-law is, well, quixotic at best and fickle at worst. An argument on the proper breakdown of the cases is begun here.","PeriodicalId":219760,"journal":{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1772725","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Core doctrine in federal securities law rests on a single word - "material." Federal statutes and agency anti-fraud rules and disclosure requirements contain the term as an essential qualifier and identifier. "Facts" or "information" must be "material" before a legal obligation to disclose attaches. In other words, the term material has an unrivaled position in the center of all of securities law and agency rules and court decisions applying the term necessarily establish the fundamental scope and bite of securities regulation. A study of close to eight hundred cases in which a federal court’s applies the term to specific facts, however, finds that the case-law is, well, quixotic at best and fickle at worst. An argument on the proper breakdown of the cases is begun here.
证券法中“实质性”概念的过度使用与界定不足
联邦证券法的核心原则依赖于一个词——“材料”。联邦法规和机构反欺诈规则以及披露要求将该术语作为必要的限定词和标识符。“事实”或“信息”必须是“重要的”,才有披露的法律义务。换句话说,“实质性”一词在所有证券法和机构规则以及适用该词的法院判决中具有无与伦比的中心地位,这必然确立了证券监管的基本范围和内容。然而,一项对近800个案例的研究发现,在这些案例中,联邦法院将这一术语应用于具体事实,而判例法在最好的情况下是不切实际的,在最坏的情况下是反复无常的。在这里,我们开始讨论如何对这些案例进行适当的分类。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信