Footnotes (165)



Securities Act Section 12 (2) After the Gustafson Debacle

Stephen M. Bainbridge

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law

Business Lawyer, Vol. 50, Pp. 1231, 1995

In a 1992 colloquy held in the pages of the Business Lawyer, Professors Louis Loss and Elliott Weiss debated the scope of liability under section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. Following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Gustafson vs. Alloyd Co., the Business Lawyer invited Professor Stephen Bainbridge to substitute for Professor Loss as the defender of a broad interpretation of section 12(2) [subsequently re-numbered section 12(a)(2)]. In this article, Bainbridge argues that the Gustafson decision limited liability under section 12(2) to misrepresentations and omissions committed in connection with public offerings of securities. Bainbridge criticizes the Gustafson decision on a variety of grounds, including its inconsistency with prior precedent, the text of the statute, and the Act's legislative history.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 48

JEL Classification: K22

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: July 27, 2001  

Suggested Citation

Bainbridge, Stephen M., Securities Act Section 12 (2) After the Gustafson Debacle. Business Lawyer, Vol. 50, Pp. 1231, 1995. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=274428 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.274428

Contact Information

Stephen Mark Bainbridge (Contact Author)
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law ( email )
385 Charles E. Young Dr. East
Room 1242
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476
United States
310-206-1599 (Phone)
310-825-6023 (Fax)
HOME PAGE: http://www.professorbainbridge.com
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 4,887
Downloads: 332
Download Rank: 66,099
Footnotes:  165

© 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 0.234 seconds