Document Type
Article
Media Type
Text
Abstract
This article analyzes the United States Supreme Court decision of Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, in which the Court held that fraud claims under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 cannot be sustained against third parties that did not directly mislead investors. After providing a brief overview of section 10(b) and rule l0b-5 jurisprudence, this note will discuss the facts surrounding the Stoneridge decision and provide an in-depth discussion of the majority opinion. This article ultimately advances the argument that the Stoneridge Court erred in its analysis of the plain language of the statute, previous case law, and the facts of the case and, thus, erred in its decision. Specifically, this article will assert that the Stoneridge Court effectively has nullified liability under 10(b)-5(a) and (c). Finally, this article will consider the lasting impacts of the decision on securities litigation.
First Page
281
Last Page
310
Publication Date
5-1-2009
Department
Other
ISSN
0734-1490
Language
eng
Publisher
Northern Illinois University Law Review
Recommended Citation
Mruk, Laura D.
(2009)
"The Proverbial Axe to the Judicial Oak: The Impact of Stoneridge on Plaintiff's Actions Under § 10(b),"
Northern Illinois University Law Review: Vol. 29:
Iss.
2, Article 4.
Suggested Citation
Laura D. Mruk, The Proverbial Axe to the Judicial Oak: The Impact of Stoneridge on Plaintiff's Actions Under § 10(b), 29 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 281 (2009).
