A Coherent Approach to Misleading Corporate Announcements, Fraud, and Rule 10b-5

Dennis S. Karjala

Arizona State University College of Law


Albany Law Review, Vol. 52, p. 957, 1988

Basic Inc. v. Levison represents a significant expansion of the Supreme Court’s view of the scope of liability under rule 10b-5. The expansion inheres less in the Court’s adoption of the fraud on the market theory for dispensing with the reliance requirement in situations in which fraudulent misrepresentations have pegged efficient market prices at an artificial level than in its unquestioned and unanalyzed acceptance of the application of clause (b) of rule 10b-5 to persons who have not traded. The effect of this approach, which results from treating rule 10b-5 as a disclosure provision rather than a fraud provision, is to place most of the weight in determining liability on the materiality issue. This leaves little room for taking into consideration other factors that should bear on the scope of liability, such as degree of culpability or overall benefit to shareholders generally. The effect will be a result-oriented analysis of largely irrelevant facts as courts seek to limit liability in proper cases and, paradoxically, a weakened disclosure system as companies learn that the safest path is now a flat no comment to all inquiries, whether or not a materially substantive response is available.

This article suggests that more coherent limits can and should be placed on rule 10b-5 by treating it as a fraud provision. The disclosure-oriented clause (b) is held in check by limiting liability for material misrepresentations and half-truths, absent further proof of a fraudulent scheme, to defendants who have transacted with the plaintiff. This analytical approach is general and applicable to a wide variety of securities regulation situations. In cases like Levinson, involving misleading corporate announcements but no trading or other direct benefit to those responsible for the announcements, the analysis must proceed under clauses (a) and (c) and the issue is whether the defendant’s conduct is properly characterized as fraud. The degree and effect of any wrongful disclosure constitute an important part of that analysis, but all other relevant factors, such as degree of culpability, are naturally included.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 37

Keywords: Basic Inc. v. Levison, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 (1988), Misleading Corporate Announcements

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: May 29, 2009  

Suggested Citation

Karjala, Dennis S., A Coherent Approach to Misleading Corporate Announcements, Fraud, and Rule 10b-5 (1988). Albany Law Review, Vol. 52, p. 957, 1988. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1411463

Contact Information

Dennis S. Karjala (Contact Author)
Arizona State University College of Law ( email )
Box 877906
Tempe, AZ 85287-7906
United States
480-965-4010 (Phone)
480-965-2427 (Fax)
HOME PAGE: http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 591
Downloads: 44

© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 2.297 seconds