ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Corporate Governance Blogs -> The Race to the Bottom

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Corporate Governance

: The Race to the Bottom

Justice Stevens and the Loss to Investors/Shareholders

By J Robert Brown Jr.

ADVERTISEMENTS

Justice Stevens just announced that he was stepping down.  A great deal of focus will be on his views in the area of individual rights.  But it is quite clear that investors and shareholders just lost a significant ally. 

In particular, he has been the strongest voice on the Court objecting to the conservative majority's activist approach towards restricting the reach of securities fraud actions.  It became absolutely clear in Stoneridge that this majority, while unwilling to undo the private right of action under Rule 10b-5, intended as a matter of policy to restrict the reach of this provision.  It was a policy that had long been in place and one that Justice Stevens had consistently resisted.

Examples?  

He has disagreed with the conservative majority and their efforts to cut back on Rule 10b-5, most recently in Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148 (2008)  In that case, where this majority announced its affirmative opposition to cut back an actions brought under Rule 10b-5, Justice Stevens wrote a vigerous dissent.  

He wrote the majority decision in SEC v. Zandford, 535 US 813 (2002) that put a stop to efforts by the Fourth Circuit to use the "in connection with" requirement to substantially limit securities fraud actions by injured investors.

He dissented in Cent. Bank, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank, N.A., 511 U.S. 164  (1994), a much criticized and result oriented opinion that eliminated aiding and abetting liability under Rule 10b-5, despite the fact that every circuit in the country addressing the issue had found otherwise.   

He dissented in Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350 (1991), a case that effectively shortened the statute of limitations under Rule 10b-5.  It took Congress and SOX to overturn portions of this decision. 

It is with great hope that the Obama Administration will take the positions and views of Justice Steven's in this area into account when a replacement is announced. 

Full post as published by The Race to the Bottom on April 09, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0021 secs (from cache 11/04/26 13:22:41)