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

Thomas Gillespie
{"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}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文考察了最高法院对Dura案的判决,并得出结论认为,最高法院的狭义裁定(即不能通过证明购买证券时的价格被人为抬高来抗辩损失因果关系)多少有些明显。然后,该说明提出了另一种框架,法院可以通过该框架审查损失因果关系事实模式,该框架与过去的先例一致,但比法院目前的立场更坚定和更可预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信