The Assault on Section 11 of the Securities Act: A Study in Judicial Activism
Marc I. Steinberg
Southern Methodist University - Dedman School of Law
Brent A. Kirby
affiliation not provided to SSRN
April 13, 2011
Rutgers Law Review, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2010
SMU Dedman School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 79
This article focuses on the federal courts' restrictive interpretation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, the most investor-friendly express remedy that the "New Deal" Congress enacted. This judicial erosion has resulted in a cause of action that extends to fewer investors and is riddled with uncertainty at the pleading stage. The authors posit that recent federal court decisions that have added reliance as an element of Section 11 claims and rejected the use of statistical evidence to prove tracing are inconsistent with Section 11's text and legislative history. The article then explores the inconsistencies associated with pleading Section 11 claims that "sound in fraud" by asserting that these claims should be extended the longer statute of limitations available to such fraud-based claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The authors conclude that the federal courts' focus on impeding vexatious litigation has resulted in unduly restrictive judicial interpretations that have altered the very nature of Section 11.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 67Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: April 17, 2011 ; Last revised: March 20, 2012
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.250 seconds