{"title":"Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc.诉Broudo:错失纠正PSLRA错误和重新平衡私人规则10b-5诉讼环境的机会","authors":"Thomas Gillespie","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1145602","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This note examines the Supreme Court's Dura decision, and concludes that the Court's narrow holding (that pleading loss causation cannot be accomplished via a showing that the price of a security at the time of purchase was artificially inflated) was somewhat obvious. The note then proposes an alternative framework through which courts might examine loss causation fact patterns that is consistent with past precedent but firmer and more predictable than the Court's current stance.","PeriodicalId":319600,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business and Technology Law","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo: A Missed Opportunity to Right the Wrongs in the PSLRA and Rebalance the Private Rule 10b-5 Litigation Playing Field\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Gillespie\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1145602\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This note examines the Supreme Court's Dura decision, and concludes that the Court's narrow holding (that pleading loss causation cannot be accomplished via a showing that the price of a security at the time of purchase was artificially inflated) was somewhat obvious. The note then proposes an alternative framework through which courts might examine loss causation fact patterns that is consistent with past precedent but firmer and more predictable than the Court's current stance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":319600,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Business and Technology Law\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Business and Technology Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1145602\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business and Technology Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1145602","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo: A Missed Opportunity to Right the Wrongs in the PSLRA and Rebalance the Private Rule 10b-5 Litigation Playing Field
This note examines the Supreme Court's Dura decision, and concludes that the Court's narrow holding (that pleading loss causation cannot be accomplished via a showing that the price of a security at the time of purchase was artificially inflated) was somewhat obvious. The note then proposes an alternative framework through which courts might examine loss causation fact patterns that is consistent with past precedent but firmer and more predictable than the Court's current stance.