U.S. Supreme Court,
Securities,
Corporate
Sep. 28, 2017
Justices should recognize that silence IS golden
For more than two decades, the Supreme Court has been emphasizing that the implied private right of action under Section 10(b) should be interpreted narrowly. In Leidos, the court has an opportunity to demonstrate the consistency of its rulings or to reverse course.
OCTOBER 2017 TERM
As children, many of us are taught that if you have nothing good to say, then you should not say anything at all. This is a good rule in life, and it is an even better rule in private Section 10(b) cases. So why is the Supreme Court considering otherwise?
Under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, it is unlawful to make a statement that is either materially false...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In