私人证券诉讼

Marc I. Steinberg
{"title":"私人证券诉讼","authors":"Marc I. Steinberg","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197583142.003.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter focuses on the erratic and unacceptable private securities litigation framework that prevails in the United States. The litigation structure contained in the federal securities acts was based on a different era and is not suitable for today’s securities markets. Although federal legislation has been enacted to address perceived shortcomings on an episodic basis, significant gaps and inconsistencies exist. Likewise, the federal courts, faced with a fractured statutory regimen, frequently have construed the remedial provisions in a wooden and unduly restrictive manner. The consequence of these congressional and judicial actions is a disparate liability framework that lacks sound logic, consistency, and even-handed treatment for plaintiffs and defendants alike. This chapter provides several examples of the inconsistencies and disparate treatment that prevail under the federal securities laws. Thereafter, recommendations for corrective measures are proffered. These proposals, if adopted and effectively implemented, should instill a substantially greater degree of certainty, uniformity, and equity than currently exists.","PeriodicalId":443439,"journal":{"name":"Rethinking Securities Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Private Securities Litigation\",\"authors\":\"Marc I. Steinberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780197583142.003.0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter focuses on the erratic and unacceptable private securities litigation framework that prevails in the United States. The litigation structure contained in the federal securities acts was based on a different era and is not suitable for today’s securities markets. Although federal legislation has been enacted to address perceived shortcomings on an episodic basis, significant gaps and inconsistencies exist. Likewise, the federal courts, faced with a fractured statutory regimen, frequently have construed the remedial provisions in a wooden and unduly restrictive manner. The consequence of these congressional and judicial actions is a disparate liability framework that lacks sound logic, consistency, and even-handed treatment for plaintiffs and defendants alike. This chapter provides several examples of the inconsistencies and disparate treatment that prevail under the federal securities laws. Thereafter, recommendations for corrective measures are proffered. These proposals, if adopted and effectively implemented, should instill a substantially greater degree of certainty, uniformity, and equity than currently exists.\",\"PeriodicalId\":443439,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rethinking Securities Law\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rethinking Securities Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197583142.003.0006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rethinking Securities Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197583142.003.0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章的重点是在美国盛行的不稳定和不可接受的私人证券诉讼框架。联邦证券法所包含的诉讼结构是基于不同的时代,不适合今天的证券市场。虽然已经颁布了联邦立法,以不时地解决人们察觉到的缺点,但仍存在重大差距和不一致之处。同样,面对支离破碎的法定制度,联邦法院经常以一种呆板和过分限制的方式解释补救规定。这些国会和司法行动的后果是一个完全不同的责任框架,缺乏健全的逻辑、一致性和对原告和被告的公平对待。本章提供了联邦证券法下普遍存在的不一致和差别待遇的几个例子。然后,提出纠正措施的建议。这些建议如果获得通过并得到有效执行,应该会比目前的建议具有更大程度的确定性、统一性和公平性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Private Securities Litigation
This chapter focuses on the erratic and unacceptable private securities litigation framework that prevails in the United States. The litigation structure contained in the federal securities acts was based on a different era and is not suitable for today’s securities markets. Although federal legislation has been enacted to address perceived shortcomings on an episodic basis, significant gaps and inconsistencies exist. Likewise, the federal courts, faced with a fractured statutory regimen, frequently have construed the remedial provisions in a wooden and unduly restrictive manner. The consequence of these congressional and judicial actions is a disparate liability framework that lacks sound logic, consistency, and even-handed treatment for plaintiffs and defendants alike. This chapter provides several examples of the inconsistencies and disparate treatment that prevail under the federal securities laws. Thereafter, recommendations for corrective measures are proffered. These proposals, if adopted and effectively implemented, should instill a substantially greater degree of certainty, uniformity, and equity than currently exists.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Insider Trading The Securities Act Registration Framework Private Securities Litigation Rethinking Securities Law—Laying the Groundwork Mergers and Acquisitions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1