US Supreme Court rules on third party liability towards company investors
Labels:
auditors,
rights issue,
sec
"We consider the reach of the private right of action the Court has found implied in §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 891, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b–5, 17 CFR §240.10b–5 (2007). In this suit investors alleged losses after purchasing common stock. They sought to impose liability on entities who, acting both as customers and suppliers, agreed to arrangements that allowed the investors’ company to mislead its auditor and issue a misleading financial statement affecting the stock price. We conclude the implied right of action does not reach the customer/supplier companies because the investors did not rely upon their statements or representations. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."
The decision is available here.
For further discussion, click here and here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Cool Followers
Popular entries
-
Public limited companies in Norway were given until the start of this year to implement rules designed to increase the representation of wom...
-
Figures from the DCA show that landlord possession claims were 20% down during the last quarter. Co-incidentally this was the first quarter...
-
As some of you will know, today I was speaking at the CLT 12th Annual Residential Landlord & Tenant Update . The great thing about spea...
-
The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta released a very interesting order today, considering whether the right to freedom of exp...
-
The Securities and Exchange Commission has voted unanimously to introduce amendments designed to strengthen the regulatory framework govern...
-
Like many people I suspect, I was concerned to read the recent BBC report about glass ceilings which, the report said, means that "to...
-
The Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner is investigating after old medical records were found in a dumpster behind a coffee shop by...
-
In Gregson v HAE Trustees Ltd & Ors [2008] EWHC 1006 (Ch) a so-called "dog-leg" claim was brought against the directors of a ...
-
Note - the Landlord Law Blog has now moved to www.landlordlawblog.co.uk . There is still quite a bit of confusion regarding the recent deci...
-
Earlier this year, in Hawkes v Cuddy [2009] EWCA Civ 261 , the Court of Appeal declined to follow the position, adopted in Re Guidezone [2...
Comments
Post a comment on: US Supreme Court rules on third party liability towards company investors