Like children on Christmas Eve, securities defense attorneys and corporate executives are waiting in hopeful anticipation for the Supreme Court’s coming decision in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (“Halliburton II”), which may overrule the “fraud on the market” doctrine (“FOTM”) that was announced over a quarter century ago in Basic v. Levinson.[1] Academics are divided, with probably the majority fearing the loss of general deterrence if the securities class action is substantially undercut. Conversely, a minority (including this author) believe it is remarkable that FOTM has survived as long as it has because it is extraordinarily ill-suited to the real world of securities fraud (as hereafter explained). A third more nervous group of spectators are the managing partners of litigation-oriented law firms, who know that FOTM’s potential abolition would likely imply a steep decline in securities litigation, which is the staple of their practice. Ironically, some of the securities defense attorneys eagerly awaiting FOTM’s demise may next year be learning how to litigate patent cases. Be careful then what you wish for, as you may get it.

The following comes to us from Scotland M. Duncan, an attorney at Jones Day in Pittsburgh, PA.*

It is axiomatic that calculating the amount of loss within securities fraud cases is essential to criminal sentencing.  Until about a year …

The following comes to us from Tao Li, Assistant Professor, Warwick Business School

Proxy advisors, private firms that help investors decide how to vote their shares, play an extremely powerful role in shaping corporate governance. As institutional investors vote billions …