世界各地的证券欺诈在80动议驳回

Wendy Gerwick Couture
{"title":"世界各地的证券欺诈在80动议驳回","authors":"Wendy Gerwick Couture","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2373808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Motions to dismiss are the litmus test in securities fraud class actions. A motion to dismiss is filed in virtually every securities fraud class action, and motions to dismiss are extraordinarily successful in securities fraud class actions. Therefore, courts’ opinions on motions to dismiss are immensely important to the evolution of the substantive and procedural law of securities fraud.In this Essay, I discuss emerging issues in courts’ rulings on motions to dismiss securities fraud class actions. In order to ensure that my comments reflect current trends in this ever-evolving area, I have analyzed a data set of 80 opinions issued in 2013 on motions to dismiss securities fraud class actions and drawn the following eight observations therefrom: A. Winnowing Is Real But Relatively Rare; B. Dicta Abounds, and That’s A Good Thing; C. Scienter Is (Still) King; D. The Falsity-Scienter Inference Continues to Percolate; E. The Core Operations Inference Is Hot; F. Subjective Falsity Matters; G. Puffery Is Untethered; H. What Rule 11 Findings Mandate?I hope that this journey around the world of securities fraud in 80 motions to dismiss provides guidance to litigants, courts, and scholars on this ever-evolving area of law. This Essay is drawn from my remarks at the 2013 Annual Institute for Investor Protection Conference: \"Effective and Ethical Pre-Filing Strategies for Investigating and Pleading Securities Fraud Claims,” sponsored by Loyola University Chicago School of Law’s Institute for Investor Protection and Institute for Law and Economic Policy.The Data Set Appendix for this paper is available at the following URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2373808","PeriodicalId":171263,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Governance: Arrangements & Laws eJournal","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Around the World of Securities Fraud in 80 Motions to Dismiss\",\"authors\":\"Wendy Gerwick Couture\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2373808\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Motions to dismiss are the litmus test in securities fraud class actions. A motion to dismiss is filed in virtually every securities fraud class action, and motions to dismiss are extraordinarily successful in securities fraud class actions. Therefore, courts’ opinions on motions to dismiss are immensely important to the evolution of the substantive and procedural law of securities fraud.In this Essay, I discuss emerging issues in courts’ rulings on motions to dismiss securities fraud class actions. In order to ensure that my comments reflect current trends in this ever-evolving area, I have analyzed a data set of 80 opinions issued in 2013 on motions to dismiss securities fraud class actions and drawn the following eight observations therefrom: A. Winnowing Is Real But Relatively Rare; B. Dicta Abounds, and That’s A Good Thing; C. Scienter Is (Still) King; D. The Falsity-Scienter Inference Continues to Percolate; E. The Core Operations Inference Is Hot; F. Subjective Falsity Matters; G. Puffery Is Untethered; H. What Rule 11 Findings Mandate?I hope that this journey around the world of securities fraud in 80 motions to dismiss provides guidance to litigants, courts, and scholars on this ever-evolving area of law. This Essay is drawn from my remarks at the 2013 Annual Institute for Investor Protection Conference: \\\"Effective and Ethical Pre-Filing Strategies for Investigating and Pleading Securities Fraud Claims,” sponsored by Loyola University Chicago School of Law’s Institute for Investor Protection and Institute for Law and Economic Policy.The Data Set Appendix for this paper is available at the following URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2373808\",\"PeriodicalId\":171263,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Corporate Governance: Arrangements & Laws eJournal\",\"volume\":\"78 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Corporate Governance: Arrangements & Laws eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2373808\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Governance: Arrangements & Laws eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2373808","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

驳回动议是证券欺诈集体诉讼的试金石。事实上,在每一起证券欺诈集体诉讼中都会提出驳回动议,而且驳回动议在证券欺诈集体诉讼中非常成功。因此,法院对驳回动议的意见对证券欺诈实体法和程序法的演变具有极其重要的意义。在这篇文章中,我讨论了法院对驳回证券欺诈集体诉讼动议的裁决中出现的问题。为了确保我的评论反映了这个不断发展的领域的当前趋势,我分析了2013年发布的80份关于驳回证券欺诈集体诉讼的动议的数据集,并从中得出以下8点观察结果:a .筛选是真实的,但相对罕见;B.口述丰富,这是一件好事;C.科学(仍然)为王;D.假科学推理继续渗透;E.核心运营推理火爆;F.主观虚假性问题;夸夸其谈是无拘无束的;H.规则11调查结果的授权是什么?我希望这80项驳回动议的全球证券欺诈之旅能为诉讼当事人、法院和学者在这一不断发展的法律领域提供指导。本文摘自我在2013年年度投资者保护协会会议上的讲话:“调查和辩护证券欺诈索赔的有效和道德的预备案策略”,由洛约拉大学芝加哥法学院投资者保护研究所和法律与经济政策研究所主办。本文的数据集附录可在以下网址获得:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2373808
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Around the World of Securities Fraud in 80 Motions to Dismiss
Motions to dismiss are the litmus test in securities fraud class actions. A motion to dismiss is filed in virtually every securities fraud class action, and motions to dismiss are extraordinarily successful in securities fraud class actions. Therefore, courts’ opinions on motions to dismiss are immensely important to the evolution of the substantive and procedural law of securities fraud.In this Essay, I discuss emerging issues in courts’ rulings on motions to dismiss securities fraud class actions. In order to ensure that my comments reflect current trends in this ever-evolving area, I have analyzed a data set of 80 opinions issued in 2013 on motions to dismiss securities fraud class actions and drawn the following eight observations therefrom: A. Winnowing Is Real But Relatively Rare; B. Dicta Abounds, and That’s A Good Thing; C. Scienter Is (Still) King; D. The Falsity-Scienter Inference Continues to Percolate; E. The Core Operations Inference Is Hot; F. Subjective Falsity Matters; G. Puffery Is Untethered; H. What Rule 11 Findings Mandate?I hope that this journey around the world of securities fraud in 80 motions to dismiss provides guidance to litigants, courts, and scholars on this ever-evolving area of law. This Essay is drawn from my remarks at the 2013 Annual Institute for Investor Protection Conference: "Effective and Ethical Pre-Filing Strategies for Investigating and Pleading Securities Fraud Claims,” sponsored by Loyola University Chicago School of Law’s Institute for Investor Protection and Institute for Law and Economic Policy.The Data Set Appendix for this paper is available at the following URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2373808
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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