Theories of Causal Nexus in Rule 10b-5 Claims: A Critical Reassessment

Bebchuk, Lucian A., and Ferrell, Allen. “Rethinking Basic.” The Business Lawyer 69, no. 3 (2014): 671–697. BebchukLucian A. FerrellAllen “Rethinking Basic.” The Business Lawyer 69 3 2014 671 697 Search in Google Scholar

Bhagat, Sanjai and Romano, Roberta. “Event Studies and the Law: Part II: Empirical Studies of Corporate Law.” American Law and Economics Review 4, no. 2 (2002): 380–423. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/4.2.380 BhagatSanjai RomanoRoberta “Event Studies and the Law: Part II: Empirical Studies of Corporate Law.” American Law and Economics Review 4 2 2002 380 423 https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/4.2.380 10.1093/aler/4.2.380 Search in Google Scholar

Buckberg, Elaine. “Do Courts Count Cammer Factors?” (Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, 23 August 2012) https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/08/23/do-courts-count-cammer-factors/ BuckbergElaine “Do Courts Count Cammer Factors?” (Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, 23 August 2012) https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/08/23/do-courts-count-cammer-factors/ Search in Google Scholar

Carney, William J. “The Limits of the Fraud on the Market Doctrine.” The Business Lawyer 44, no. 4 (1989): 1,259–1,292. CarneyWilliam J. “The Limits of the Fraud on the Market Doctrine.” The Business Lawyer 44 4 1989 1,259 1,292 Search in Google Scholar

Cassidy, Kathleen. “Validity of the Fraud-Created-the-Market Theory of Establishing Reliance in a Private Action for Damages Under Rule 10b-5.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 80, no. 3 (2012): 1,025–1,048. CassidyKathleen “Validity of the Fraud-Created-the-Market Theory of Establishing Reliance in a Private Action for Damages Under Rule 10b-5.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 80 3 2012 1,025 1,048 Search in Google Scholar

Coffee Jr., John C. “After the Fraud on the Market Doctrine: What Should Replace It?” Columbia Law School's Blog on Corporations and the Capital Markets. 21 January 2014. https://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2014/01/21/after-the-fraud-on-the-market-doctrine-what-should-replace-it/ CoffeeJohn CJr. “After the Fraud on the Market Doctrine: What Should Replace It?” Columbia Law School's Blog on Corporations and the Capital Markets 21 January 2014 https://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2014/01/21/after-the-fraud-on-the-market-doctrine-what-should-replace-it/ Search in Google Scholar

Dennin, Peter J. “Which Came First, the Fraud or the Market: Is the Fraud-Created-the-Market Theory Valid under Rule 10b-5.” Fordham Law Review 69, no. 6 (2001): 2,611–2,654. DenninPeter J. “Which Came First, the Fraud or the Market: Is the Fraud-Created-the-Market Theory Valid under Rule 10b-5.” Fordham Law Review 69 6 2001 2,611 2,654 Search in Google Scholar

Eisenhofer, Jay W., Jarvis, Geoffrey C., and Banko, James R. “Securities Fraud, Stock Price Valuation, and Loss Causation: Toward a Corporate Finance-Based Theory of Loss Causation.” The Business Lawyer 59, no. 4 (2004): 1,419–1,445. EisenhoferJay W. JarvisGeoffrey C. BankoJames R. “Securities Fraud, Stock Price Valuation, and Loss Causation: Toward a Corporate Finance-Based Theory of Loss Causation.” The Business Lawyer 59 4 2004 1,419 1,445 Search in Google Scholar

Fama, Eugene F. “Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work.” Journal of Finance 25, no. 2 (1970): 383–417. https://doi.org/10.2307/2325486 FamaEugene F. “Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work.” Journal of Finance 25 2 1970 383 417 https://doi.org/10.2307/2325486 10.2307/2325486 Search in Google Scholar

Finkelstein, Jared T. “Rule 10b-5 Damage Computation: Application of Finance Theory to Determine Net Economic Loss.” Fordham Law Review 51, no. 5 (1983): 838–870. FinkelsteinJared T. “Rule 10b-5 Damage Computation: Application of Finance Theory to Determine Net Economic Loss.” Fordham Law Review 51 5 1983 838 870 Search in Google Scholar

Fisch, Jill E. “The Trouble with Basic: Price Distortion After Halliburton.” Washington University Law Review 90, no. 3 (2013): 895–932. FischJill E. “The Trouble with Basic: Price Distortion After Halliburton.” Washington University Law Review 90 3 2013 895 932 Search in Google Scholar

Fisch, Jill E. Brief to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Securities Law Scholars as Amicus Curiae in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317 (filed February 4, 2014). FischJill E. Brief to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Securities Law Scholars as Amicus Curiae in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317 (filed February 4, 2014) Search in Google Scholar

Fox, Merritt B. “Understanding Dura.” The Business Lawyer 60, no. 4 (2005): 1,547–1,576. FoxMerritt B. “Understanding Dura.” The Business Lawyer 60 4 2005 1,547 1,576 Search in Google Scholar

Fox, Merritt B. “Halliburton II: What It's All About,” Journal of Financial Regulation 1, no. 1 (2015): 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1093/jfr/fju004 FoxMerritt B. “Halliburton II: What It's All About,” Journal of Financial Regulation 1 1 2015 135 142 https://doi.org/10.1093/jfr/fju004 10.1093/jfr/fju004 Search in Google Scholar

Grundfest, Joseph A. “Damages and Reliance under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.” The Business Lawyer 69, no. 2 (2014): 307–392. GrundfestJoseph A. “Damages and Reliance under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.” The Business Lawyer 69 2 2014 307 392 10.2139/ssrn.2317537 Search in Google Scholar

Helms, Brandon C. “The Supreme Court's Dura Decision Unfortunately Secures a Brighter Future for 10b-5 Defendants.” DePaul Law Review 56, no. 1 (2006): 189–222. HelmsBrandon C. “The Supreme Court's Dura Decision Unfortunately Secures a Brighter Future for 10b-5 Defendants.” DePaul Law Review 56 1 2006 189 222 Search in Google Scholar

Isaacson, Eric A. “The Roberts Court and Securities Class Actions: Reaffirming Basic Principles.” Akron Law Review 48, no. 4 (2015): 923–977. IsaacsonEric A. “The Roberts Court and Securities Class Actions: Reaffirming Basic Principles.” Akron Law Review 48 4 2015 923 977 Search in Google Scholar

Karmel, Roberta S. “When Should Investor Reliance Be Presumed in Securities Class Actions?” The Business Lawyer 63, no. 1 (2007): 25–54. KarmelRoberta S. “When Should Investor Reliance Be Presumed in Securities Class Actions?” The Business Lawyer 63 1 2007 25 54 Search in Google Scholar

Karp, Brad S. “Supreme Court Holds ‘Loss Causation’ Not a Prerequisite to Class Certification in Fraud Cases” (Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, 9 June 2011). https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/06/09/supreme-court-holds-loss-causation-not-a-prerequisite-to-class-certification-in-fraud-cases/ KarpBrad S. “Supreme Court Holds ‘Loss Causation’ Not a Prerequisite to Class Certification in Fraud Cases” (Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, 9 June 2011). https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/06/09/supreme-court-holds-loss-causation-not-a-prerequisite-to-class-certification-in-fraud-cases/ Search in Google Scholar

Kaufman, Michael J., and Wunderlich, John M. “Fraud Created the Market.” Alabama Law Review 63, no. 2 (2012): 275–320. KaufmanMichael J. WunderlichJohn M. “Fraud Created the Market.” Alabama Law Review 63 2 2012 275 320 Search in Google Scholar

Langevoort, Donald C. “Basic at Twenty: Rethinking Fraud on the Market.” Wisconsin Law Review 2009, no. 2 (2009): 151–198. LangevoortDonald C. “Basic at Twenty: Rethinking Fraud on the Market.” Wisconsin Law Review 2009 2 2009 151 198 10.2139/ssrn.1026316 Search in Google Scholar

Langevoort, Donald C. “Reading Stoneridge Carefully: A Duty-Based Approach to Reliance and Third-Party Liability Under Rule 10b-5.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 158, no. 7 (2010): 2,125–2,171. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1470940 LangevoortDonald C. “Reading Stoneridge Carefully: A Duty-Based Approach to Reliance and Third-Party Liability Under Rule 10b-5.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 158 7 2010 2,125 2,171 http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1470940 10.2139/ssrn.1470940 Search in Google Scholar

Malkiel, Burton G. “The Efficient Market Hypothesis and Its Critics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17, no. 1 (2003): 59–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/089533003321164958 MalkielBurton G. “The Efficient Market Hypothesis and Its Critics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17 1 2003 59 82 http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/089533003321164958 10.1257/089533003321164958 Search in Google Scholar

Molony, Thomas J. “Making Solid Connection: A New Look at Rule 10b-5's Transactional Nexus Requirement.” Santa Clara Law Review 53, no. 3 (2014): 767–815. MolonyThomas J. “Making Solid Connection: A New Look at Rule 10b-5's Transactional Nexus Requirement.” Santa Clara Law Review 53 3 2014 767 815 10.2139/ssrn.2070028 Search in Google Scholar

Mustokoff, Matthew L., and Mazzeo, Margaret E. “Loss Causation on Trial in Rule 10B-5 Litigation: A Decade After Dura.” Rutgers University Law Review 70, no. 1 (2017): 175–219. MustokoffMatthew L. MazzeoMargaret E. “Loss Causation on Trial in Rule 10B-5 Litigation: A Decade After Dura.” Rutgers University Law Review 70 1 2017 175 219 Search in Google Scholar

Note. “The Fraud-on-the-Market Theory.” Harvard Law Review 95, no. 5 (1982): 1,143–1,161. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340576 Note. “The Fraud-on-the-Market Theory.” Harvard Law Review 95 5 1982 1,143 1,161 https://doi.org/10.2307/1340576 10.2307/1340576 Search in Google Scholar

Seligman, Joel. “The Merits Do Matter: A Comment on Professor Grundfest's Disimplying Private Rights of Action under the Federal Securities Laws: The Commission's Authority.” Harvard Law Review 108, no. 2 (1994): 438–457. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341897 SeligmanJoel “The Merits Do Matter: A Comment on Professor Grundfest's Disimplying Private Rights of Action under the Federal Securities Laws: The Commission's Authority.” Harvard Law Review 108 2 1994 438 457 https://doi.org/10.2307/1341897 10.2307/1341897 Search in Google Scholar

Thorsen, Madge S., Kaplan, Richard A., and Hakala, Scott. “Rediscovering the Economics of Loss Causation.” Journal of Business and Securities Law 6, no. 1–2 (2006): 93–125. ThorsenMadge S. KaplanRichard A. HakalaScott “Rediscovering the Economics of Loss Causation.” Journal of Business and Securities Law 6 1–2 2006 93 125 Search in Google Scholar

Thorson, Ryan S. “Securities Law – The Artificially Inflation Purchase Price Theory: An Economically Sound Yet Legally Insufficient Method of Pleading and Proving Loss Causation, Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo.” Wyoming Law Review 6, no. 2 (2006): 623–656. ThorsonRyan S. “Securities Law – The Artificially Inflation Purchase Price Theory: An Economically Sound Yet Legally Insufficient Method of Pleading and Proving Loss Causation, Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo.” Wyoming Law Review 6 2 2006 623 656 10.59643/1942-9916.1142 Search in Google Scholar