Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Why disimply?

Article Abstract:

Joel Seligman has suggested that the evidence does not demonstrate the need to disimply private rights of action under federal securities laws. However, the evidence he cites does not support his conclusions. The merits matter in some cases, but sometimes they do not. Furthermore, the Securities and Exchange Commission has issued a concept release in Oct 1994 that recognizes the problem and asks for suggestions to provide a better safe harbor against allegation of fraud in forward-looking statements. The Commission's action represents a desirable first step, but a broader inquiry into the problem of private class action securities litigation is needed.

Author: Grundfest, Joseph A.
Publisher: Harvard Law Review Association
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1995
Seligman, Joel

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


The merits still matter: a rejoinder to Professor Grundfest's comment, 'Why Disimply?' (article by Joseph A. Grundfest in this issue, p. 727) (private right of action under federal securities laws)

Article Abstract:

Joseph Grundfest has not successfully overturned the argument that the burden of proof has not been met by those who advocate change in federal securities laws to disimply private rights of action. Grundfest calls for further inquiry into the problem, and his comments help to focus the debate, but his analysis remains at the level of theory. Additional concrete evidence is still needed to support the case for legislative or regulatory change.

Author: Seligman, Joel
Publisher: Harvard Law Review Association
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1995
Grundfest, Joseph A.

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


In memoriam: Louis Loss

Article Abstract:

The June 1998 issue of the Harvard Law Review is dedicated to the memory of Harvard Law School Professor Louis Loss. Four separate comments by associates and friends of Professor Loss, which originally were included in a Jan 1998 memorial service, are presented. Professor Loss was a leading scholar in the area of securities regulation. Personal and professional memories are presented.

Author: Vagts, Detlev F., Clark, Robert C., Seligman, Joel, Kroll, Milton P.
Publisher: Harvard Law Review Association
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1998
United States, Law teachers, Testimonial, Law school faculty, Loss, Louis

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Interpretation and construction, Laws, regulations and rules, Criticism and interpretation, Securities law, Right of action
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Chicago students plan to export American con law to Chinese. Minority students put together, but some whites are objecting
  • Abstracts: Proofing positive. Wireless remote print solution
  • Abstracts: Shopper's guide to legal document assembly. WordToys 2.5. WordPerfect to Word
  • Abstracts: Private prisons. Collateral consequences of imprisonment for children, communities, and prisoners. Understanding the effects of wrongful imprisonment
  • Abstracts: Chile-price band system and safeguard measures relating to certain agricultural products. Rules of arbitration and conciliation (Vienna Rules)
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.