Rule 10b-5 Private Right of Action Forum
- YankeesFan
- Posts: 533
- Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:42 pm
Rule 10b-5 Private Right of Action
Can anyone give me a definitive list of the elements (procedural requirements) that need to be met to bring a private right of action under 10b-5?
-
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:13 pm
Re: Rule 10b-5 Private Right of Action
Fraud
Materiality (Basic v. Levinson/Probability-Magnitude)
In connection with purchase/sale of securities (TX Gulf Sulphur)
Causal nexus between fraud and resulting harm (reliance + causation)
Scienter
Materiality (Basic v. Levinson/Probability-Magnitude)
In connection with purchase/sale of securities (TX Gulf Sulphur)
Causal nexus between fraud and resulting harm (reliance + causation)
Scienter
- JamMasterJ
- Posts: 6649
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:17 pm
Re: Rule 10b-5 Private Right of Action
SEC 10b-5 – no false statements or omissions of material facts in a purchase or sale
Also scienter + reliance (except for omission) + causation + damages for private action
IIRC fraud's one of the things but not definitely required.
Also remember, that PRActions don't really every happen.
Also scienter + reliance (except for omission) + causation + damages for private action
IIRC fraud's one of the things but not definitely required.
Also remember, that PRActions don't really every happen.
- JusticeHarlan
- Posts: 1516
- Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:56 pm
Re: Rule 10b-5 Private Right of Action
I think it works like this: the elements are fraud, in connection with the sale of securities. So some of the elements are just sub-elements of common law fraud. I'd probably organize it conceptually like this:
1. Fraud:
1a. Deceit or omission
1b. Duty to disclose/be truthful (more of an issue for omissions than outright lies)
1c. Scienter (Hochfelder; Tellabs for post-PSLRA)
1d. Materiality (Basic)
1e. Reliance (Basic for fraud on the market; Affiliated Ute for face-to-face)
1f. Loss Causation (Dura Pharmaceuticals)
1g. Damages
2. In Connection with (Texas Gulf Sulfur)
3. The sale of securities (Blue Chip Stamp)
1. Fraud:
1a. Deceit or omission
1b. Duty to disclose/be truthful (more of an issue for omissions than outright lies)
1c. Scienter (Hochfelder; Tellabs for post-PSLRA)
1d. Materiality (Basic)
1e. Reliance (Basic for fraud on the market; Affiliated Ute for face-to-face)
1f. Loss Causation (Dura Pharmaceuticals)
1g. Damages
2. In Connection with (Texas Gulf Sulfur)
3. The sale of securities (Blue Chip Stamp)
- JamMasterJ
- Posts: 6649
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:17 pm
Re: Rule 10b-5 Private Right of Action
are you sure there's duty to disclose for 10b-5? Not saying you're wrong, but I know duty to disclose was removed as an element for a lot of those.JusticeHarlan wrote:I think it works like this: the elements are fraud, in connection with the sale of securities. So some of the elements are just sub-elements of common law fraud. I'd probably organize it conceptually like this:
1. Fraud:
1a. Deceit or omission
1b. Duty to disclose/be truthful (more of an issue for omissions than outright lies)
1c. Scienter (Hochfelder; Tellabs for post-PSLRA)
1d. Materiality (Basic)
1e. Reliance (Basic for fraud on the market; Affiliated Ute for face-to-face)
1f. Loss Causation (Dura Pharmaceuticals)
1g. Damages
2. In Connection with (Texas Gulf Sulfur)
3. The sale of securities (Blue Chip Stamp)
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- sambeber
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:05 pm
Re: Rule 10b-5 Private Right of Action
I read it as having two flavors:
(1) misstatement: requires some speech + material falsity
(2) omission: requires silence + duty to speak/disclose
(1) misstatement: requires some speech + material falsity
(2) omission: requires silence + duty to speak/disclose
- JusticeHarlan
- Posts: 1516
- Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:56 pm
Re: Rule 10b-5 Private Right of Action
JamMasterJ wrote:are you sure there's duty to disclose for 10b-5? Not saying you're wrong, but I know duty to disclose was removed as an element for a lot of those.
Yeah, this: the duty comes in for omission-based claims. You don't have a general duty to shout every piece of bad news about the corporation from the rooftops because not saying something generally won't be a violation. But if it's something you have to disclose in a 10-Q (or, more interestingly, an 8-K) and you don't, then it may be a violation. (IIRC, it also comes into play when you speak truthfully and positively on a subject but don't mention the related negatives. Once you open your mouth on topic, you've essentially created the duty to full and fair disclosure so as to avoid a misleading impression. Also, there's a circuit split on whether you have to update info that was true when you said it but isn't anymore; 7th says no duty, 2nd says there is a duty, according to my old outline.)sambeber wrote:I read it as having two flavors:
(1) misstatement: requires some speech + material falsity
(2) omission: requires silence + duty to speak/disclose
For misstatements, there's not going to be a duty issue.
Think of it like negligence torts: you don't generally go into a discussion of duty for misfeasance (hitting someone with your car), only non-feasance (not pulling someone out of the way of a speeding car). Same idea for misstatements and omissions.
- Mike12188
- Posts: 792
- Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:07 am
Re: Rule 10b-5 Private Right of Action
I think including "duty to disclose" as an element of a 10b-5 action is wrong and very confusing. 10b-5 itself is the duty.
"It is unlawful make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading"
The rule itself is a duty to make true statements - or non-misleading statements.
EDIT: I re-read your post and see what you're talking about now, still think you made it more confusing though. I have duty to update/correct as subcategories of fraud.
"It is unlawful make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading"
The rule itself is a duty to make true statements - or non-misleading statements.
EDIT: I re-read your post and see what you're talking about now, still think you made it more confusing though. I have duty to update/correct as subcategories of fraud.
Last edited by Mike12188 on Sat Apr 27, 2013 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- sambeber
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:05 pm
Re: Rule 10b-5 Private Right of Action
How do you deal with silence-based 10b-5 actions then?Mike12188 wrote:I think including "duty to disclose" as an element of a 10b-5 action is wrong and very confusing. 10b-5 itself is the duty.
"It is unlawful make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading"
The rule itself is a duty to make true statements - or non-misleading statements.
- JusticeHarlan
- Posts: 1516
- Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:56 pm
Re: Rule 10b-5 Private Right of Action
But when, and in what contexts, do you need to make true statements? Whenever anything important happens?Mike12188 wrote:The rule itself is a duty to make true statements
- JamMasterJ
- Posts: 6649
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:17 pm
Re: Rule 10b-5 Private Right of Action
JH, you're right, I had tender offers in mind, which are under 14e-3
- Mike12188
- Posts: 792
- Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:07 am
Re: Rule 10b-5 Private Right of Action
When you speak (unless of course its puffery) . I think there was a big misunderstanding on my part and I agree with you. I agree there is a duty to update, disclose - I just don't have them listed as separate elements, just that for example in the absence of a duty to update silence would not be fraudulent, so the first element of 10b-5 would not be met. Sorry for any confusion.JusticeHarlan wrote:But when, and in what contexts, do you need to make true statements? Whenever anything important happens?Mike12188 wrote:The rule itself is a duty to make true statements
-
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:57 pm
Re: Rule 10b-5 Private Right of Action
I'm not sure what all the situations are where a "duty to disclose" arises, but the Supreme Court has appealed to such a duty in the context of insider trading. For example, in Chiarella v. United States, the Court held that a corporate insider has a duty to disclose material nonpublic information to shareholders or refrain from trading on that information.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login