《证券法》第11条规定的主观虚假:保护意见陈述

Daniel Smith
{"title":"《证券法》第11条规定的主观虚假:保护意见陈述","authors":"Daniel Smith","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2394241","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Subjective Falsity Under Section 11 of the Securities Act: Protecting Statements of Opinion discusses the Sixth Circuit’s strict liability decision in Indiana State District Council of Laborers & Hod Carriers Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. for statements of opinion contained in registration statements, and its express departure from both the Second and Ninth Circuits. Consistent with the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits, this Article proposes that both objective and subjective falsity should be the requisite pleading standard for section 11 opinion statement cases. This Article reaches this conclusion by examining the history of the Securities Act and section 11, pleading requirements, decisions of other circuits, current legal scholarship, and recently-implemented statutes and regulations. Additionally, this Article examines the detrimental effects that a strict liability holding will have on highly-regulated industries such as healthcare and finance. This case is currently pending before the Supreme Court, sub nom. Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, distributed for conference of February 21, 2014.","PeriodicalId":355269,"journal":{"name":"CGN: Disclosure & Accounting Decisions (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Subjective Falsity Under Section 11 of the Securities Act: Protecting Statements of Opinion\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2394241\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Subjective Falsity Under Section 11 of the Securities Act: Protecting Statements of Opinion discusses the Sixth Circuit’s strict liability decision in Indiana State District Council of Laborers & Hod Carriers Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. for statements of opinion contained in registration statements, and its express departure from both the Second and Ninth Circuits. Consistent with the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits, this Article proposes that both objective and subjective falsity should be the requisite pleading standard for section 11 opinion statement cases. This Article reaches this conclusion by examining the history of the Securities Act and section 11, pleading requirements, decisions of other circuits, current legal scholarship, and recently-implemented statutes and regulations. Additionally, this Article examines the detrimental effects that a strict liability holding will have on highly-regulated industries such as healthcare and finance. This case is currently pending before the Supreme Court, sub nom. Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, distributed for conference of February 21, 2014.\",\"PeriodicalId\":355269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CGN: Disclosure & Accounting Decisions (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CGN: Disclosure & Accounting Decisions (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2394241\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGN: Disclosure & Accounting Decisions (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2394241","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

《证券法》第11条规定的主观虚假:保护意见陈述讨论了第六巡回法院在印第安纳州地区劳工和承运人养老福利基金委员会诉Omnicare, Inc.一案中关于登记声明中包含的意见陈述的严格责任判决,以及该判决与第二和第九巡回法院的明确背离。与第二、第三和第九巡回法院一致,本文提出客观和主观虚假都应成为第11条意见陈述案件的必要抗辩标准。本文通过考察《证券法》和第11条的历史、抗辩要求、其他巡回法院的判决、当前的法律学术研究以及最近实施的法规和法规,得出了这一结论。此外,本文还研究了严格的责任控股将对医疗保健和金融等高度监管的行业产生的有害影响。该案目前正在最高法院审理,Omnicare公司诉劳工区议会建筑业养老基金案,将于2014年2月21日召开会议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Subjective Falsity Under Section 11 of the Securities Act: Protecting Statements of Opinion
Subjective Falsity Under Section 11 of the Securities Act: Protecting Statements of Opinion discusses the Sixth Circuit’s strict liability decision in Indiana State District Council of Laborers & Hod Carriers Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. for statements of opinion contained in registration statements, and its express departure from both the Second and Ninth Circuits. Consistent with the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits, this Article proposes that both objective and subjective falsity should be the requisite pleading standard for section 11 opinion statement cases. This Article reaches this conclusion by examining the history of the Securities Act and section 11, pleading requirements, decisions of other circuits, current legal scholarship, and recently-implemented statutes and regulations. Additionally, this Article examines the detrimental effects that a strict liability holding will have on highly-regulated industries such as healthcare and finance. This case is currently pending before the Supreme Court, sub nom. Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, distributed for conference of February 21, 2014.
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