Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explain the issues related to “scheme liability” that underlie the current case before the United States Supreme Court, Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific‐Atlanta and Motorola. Design/methodology/approach – Explains the facts of the Stoneridge case; explains the legal framework, including ongoing debates over the scope of liability under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b‐5, the Supreme Court's decision in Central Bank, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank, development of the “scheme liability” concept by various plaintiffs' lawyers, and three circuit court decisions related to scheme liability; and the philosophy that is likely to guide the Supreme Court in Stoneridge . Findings – The Stoneridge case provides the Supreme Court with the unique opportunity to clarify the limits of liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b‐5. It is the first time since Central Bank that the Supreme Court will grapple with the contours of liability for so‐called secondary actors. Originality/value – A clear explanation of the issues in a highly visible Supreme Court case by an experienced commercial litigator.
Journal of Investment Compliance – Emerald Publishing
Published: Mar 14, 2008
Keywords: Legislation; United States of America; Securities; Fraud; Liability
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.