如果美国证券交易委员会的鞋子不合适:自我监管组织和绝对豁免权

Jennifer M. Pacella
{"title":"如果美国证券交易委员会的鞋子不合适:自我监管组织和绝对豁免权","authors":"Jennifer M. Pacella","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2128688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The absolute legal immunity granted to self-regulatory organizations (SROs) in the securities industry has incited increasingly controversial concerns about the lack of accountability of financial regulators. Although SROs like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) are deemed to 'stand in the shoes' of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) by carrying out delegated, quasi-governmental duties in monitoring securities markets, their alternate role as private, commercial entities raises questions as to the fairness of expansive SRO immunity. Plaintiffs have historically been denied any redress even in instances of alleged SRO fraud, misconduct, and bad faith. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to question the Second Circuit’s decision in Standard Investment Chartered Inc. v. National Association of Securities Dealers, which expanded SRO immunity to cover not only direct SRO functions on behalf of the government, but also actions that are “incident to” SROs’ regulatory functions. This Article supports the notion that legal immunity for SROs should be subject to a fraud exception, which would hold SROs accountable for the very same misconduct that such entities seek to police. To alleviate the common concern that limiting SRO immunity would lead to frivolous lawsuits overloading the courts, this Article will look to two requirements already in place that serve to prevent this possibility: 1) fraud cases are currently subject to heightened pleading standards and 2) the SEC must review any allegations against SROs before the court system may be invoked. In addition, by pointing out documented SEC shortfalls in SRO oversight, this Article will challenge the argument that favors expansive SRO immunity on the grounds that the SEC already adequately oversees SROs for potential abuses. By carving out a fraud exception from the expansive absolute immunity doctrine, plaintiffs would be granted the chance to seek legal recourse for those instances in which SROs have failed to stand in the shoes of the SEC.","PeriodicalId":130859,"journal":{"name":"Baruch College Zicklin School of Business Research Paper Series","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"If the Shoe of the SEC Doesn't Fit: Self-Regulatory Organizations and Absolute Immunity\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer M. Pacella\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2128688\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The absolute legal immunity granted to self-regulatory organizations (SROs) in the securities industry has incited increasingly controversial concerns about the lack of accountability of financial regulators. Although SROs like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) are deemed to 'stand in the shoes' of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) by carrying out delegated, quasi-governmental duties in monitoring securities markets, their alternate role as private, commercial entities raises questions as to the fairness of expansive SRO immunity. Plaintiffs have historically been denied any redress even in instances of alleged SRO fraud, misconduct, and bad faith. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to question the Second Circuit’s decision in Standard Investment Chartered Inc. v. National Association of Securities Dealers, which expanded SRO immunity to cover not only direct SRO functions on behalf of the government, but also actions that are “incident to” SROs’ regulatory functions. This Article supports the notion that legal immunity for SROs should be subject to a fraud exception, which would hold SROs accountable for the very same misconduct that such entities seek to police. To alleviate the common concern that limiting SRO immunity would lead to frivolous lawsuits overloading the courts, this Article will look to two requirements already in place that serve to prevent this possibility: 1) fraud cases are currently subject to heightened pleading standards and 2) the SEC must review any allegations against SROs before the court system may be invoked. In addition, by pointing out documented SEC shortfalls in SRO oversight, this Article will challenge the argument that favors expansive SRO immunity on the grounds that the SEC already adequately oversees SROs for potential abuses. By carving out a fraud exception from the expansive absolute immunity doctrine, plaintiffs would be granted the chance to seek legal recourse for those instances in which SROs have failed to stand in the shoes of the SEC.\",\"PeriodicalId\":130859,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Baruch College Zicklin School of Business Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Baruch College Zicklin School of Business Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2128688\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baruch College Zicklin School of Business Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2128688","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

授予证券业自律组织(sro)的绝对法律豁免权,引发了对金融监管机构缺乏问责制的越来越有争议的担忧。尽管像金融业监管局(FINRA)这样的SRO被认为是“站在证券交易委员会(SEC)的立场上”,在监督证券市场方面执行委托的准政府职责,但它们作为私人商业实体的替代角色引发了对SRO广泛豁免权公平性的质疑。历史上,即使在所谓的SRO欺诈、不当行为和恶意的情况下,原告也被拒绝给予任何赔偿。2012年,美国最高法院拒绝质疑第二巡回法院在标准投资银行诉全国证券交易商协会案中的裁决,该裁决将SRO豁免权扩大到不仅包括代表政府的直接SRO职能,还包括与SRO监管职能“相关”的行动。本条支持这样一种观点,即对sro的法律豁免应受到欺诈例外的约束,这将使sro对此类实体寻求监管的同样不当行为负责。为了减轻人们对限制SRO豁免权将导致无聊的诉讼使法院负担过重的普遍担忧,本文将着眼于现有的两个要求,以防止这种可能性:1)欺诈案件目前受到更高的辩护标准的约束;2)SEC必须在援引法院系统之前审查针对SRO的任何指控。此外,通过指出记录在案的SEC在SRO监督方面的不足,本文将挑战支持扩大SRO豁免权的论点,理由是SEC已经充分监督SRO的潜在滥用行为。通过从广泛的绝对豁免原则中剔除欺诈例外,原告将有机会在sro未能站在SEC立场的情况下寻求法律追索权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
If the Shoe of the SEC Doesn't Fit: Self-Regulatory Organizations and Absolute Immunity
The absolute legal immunity granted to self-regulatory organizations (SROs) in the securities industry has incited increasingly controversial concerns about the lack of accountability of financial regulators. Although SROs like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) are deemed to 'stand in the shoes' of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) by carrying out delegated, quasi-governmental duties in monitoring securities markets, their alternate role as private, commercial entities raises questions as to the fairness of expansive SRO immunity. Plaintiffs have historically been denied any redress even in instances of alleged SRO fraud, misconduct, and bad faith. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to question the Second Circuit’s decision in Standard Investment Chartered Inc. v. National Association of Securities Dealers, which expanded SRO immunity to cover not only direct SRO functions on behalf of the government, but also actions that are “incident to” SROs’ regulatory functions. This Article supports the notion that legal immunity for SROs should be subject to a fraud exception, which would hold SROs accountable for the very same misconduct that such entities seek to police. To alleviate the common concern that limiting SRO immunity would lead to frivolous lawsuits overloading the courts, this Article will look to two requirements already in place that serve to prevent this possibility: 1) fraud cases are currently subject to heightened pleading standards and 2) the SEC must review any allegations against SROs before the court system may be invoked. In addition, by pointing out documented SEC shortfalls in SRO oversight, this Article will challenge the argument that favors expansive SRO immunity on the grounds that the SEC already adequately oversees SROs for potential abuses. By carving out a fraud exception from the expansive absolute immunity doctrine, plaintiffs would be granted the chance to seek legal recourse for those instances in which SROs have failed to stand in the shoes of the SEC.
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