Spillover Effects in Disclosure-Related Securities Litigation

Bias of Damage Awards and Free Options in Securities Litigation

Damage measures in securities fraud cases are very imprecise because they are based on security price changes that reflect both the correction of previous misrepresentation and other independent information. Consequently, potential plaintiffs have a valuable “free option” to decide whether or not to file suit, and average damage awards are greater than actual damages, much greater when markets ...

Direct and Derivative Claims in Securities Fraud Litigation

In the typical securities fraud class action under Rule 10b-5, the plaintiff class consists of buyers who seek damages equal to the difference between the price paid for the stock during the fraud period and the lower price that prevails after corrective disclosure. The argument here is that this claim is really an amalgam of direct and derivative claims and that the derivative claims should re...

The Importance of the Prefiling Phase for Securities-Fraud Litigation

The pleading burden that governs securities-fraud litigation is significantly higher than those standards that govern traditional civil cases. The heightened pleading burden applicable to securities cases has transformed the motion to dismiss into something like summary judgment. In fact, to contend with this heightened pleading burden, plaintiffs typically must spend more time in the prefiling...

Computer-Based Disclosure and Discovery in Civil Litigation

Risk disclosure in securities exchange and medical treatment contracts.

The duty of risk disclosure in medical treatment contracts is examined first through comparison with securities exchange contracts, second, by examining the contract as dealt in judicial precedent, ensued by an analysis and proposal by the author. In both types of contracts, the number of judicial judgments finding for the plaintiff based solely on violation of the duty of risk disclosure is in...