VIEW TREE
ICON KEY
198977:false:false:false:false:false:false:true:false:false:!:false:-1:-1
Market efficiency for purposes of a fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance in a Rule 10b-5 claim.
Add Comment
Contributed in 2010 by David Gold
Browse from No
Law
»
Commerce, labor, particular activities & industries
»
Securities
»
Liability & enforcement
»
Fraud claims
»
SEC Rule 10b-5
»
Substance
»
Liability
»
Primary
»
Types of claims (by types of wrongs)
»
Misstatement/omission claims (10b-5(b))
»
Elements
»
Individual elements
»
Reliance
»
No liability without reliance
»
Presumptions of reliance
»
Fraud on the market
»
Requires (1) public material misrepresentation by Δ, (2) efficient market, (3) trades during time of deception
»
Efficiency: Market efficiency for...
Narrow Down
Contribution Suggestions
vouch for authority for rule...
The elements of a Rule 10b-5 claim alleging misstatements or omissions are (1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant; (2)...In re Miva, Inc., Securities Litigation, 544 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1314 (M.D. Fla. 2008).
in support of
The elements of a Rule 10b-5 claim alleging misstatements or omissions are (1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation.vouch for authority for rule...
In actions brought by the United States, a defendant may be held liable for aiding and abetting a violation of Rule 10b-5.Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 761, 769, 773 (2008) (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 78ff, 78t(e)).
in support of
In actions brought by the United States, a defendant may be held liable for aiding and abetting a violation of Rule 10b-5.vouch for authority for rule...
There is no exhaustive list of factors that a district court should or must use in determining whether a market is efficient for the purposes of...See In re Polymedica Corp. Securities Litigation, 432 F.3d 1, 18 (1st Cir. 2005) (noting that the often cited list of factors set forth in ''Cammer v. Bloom'', 711 F.Supp. 1264 (D.N.J. 1989), is not exhaustive).
in support of
There is no exhaustive list of factors that a district court should or must use in determining whether a market is efficient for the purposes of establishing the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance.