Law Outlines Securities Regulations (Duke Cox) Outlines
Securities Regulations outline from Duke for Professor Cox...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Securities Regulations (Duke Cox) Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
TSC industries: An omitted fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important in deciding how to vote
It does not require proof of a substantial likelihood that disclosure of the omitted fact would have caused the reasonable investor to change his vote. What the standard does contemplate is a showing of a substantial likelihood that, under all the circumstances, the omitted fact would have assumed actual significance in the deliberations of the reasonable shareholder. Put another way, there must be a substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the “total mix” of information made available
Some disclosure items, while large in the absolute, become immaterial relative to the size of the firm
What defense does issuer have under §11?
None, except to argue that the omission/misstatement was not material
Truth on the market: Can’t be a material false representation if everyone understands that these are not reliable representations based on the information on the market
E.g. industry practice, analyst’s reports
Puffery = statements that are not really believable
Statements tend to be general, optimistic, not specific
Puffery is not actionable
Mere sales puffer is not actionable it’s expected
Everybody knows that someone trying to sell something is going to look and talk on the bright side. You don’t sell a product by bad mouthing it
The heart of a reasonable investor does not begin to flutter when a firm announces that some project or process is proceeding smoothly, and so the announcement will not drive up the price of the firm’s shares to an unsustainable level
Where puffing is the order of the day, literal truth can be profoundly misleading
An opinion is material, but is it a fact?
Securities laws talk about misrepresentation of fact
Normally opinion statements are not actionable unless there’s objective evidence available to the person issuing the opinion that is inconsistent with the opinion. Virginia bank case.
The first line of defense for a “missed” forecast under the case law as well as the statutory safe harbor for forward-looking statements is not the reasonableness of its preparer’s efforts but whether the forecast was accompanied by meaningful cautionary language
Kaufman: Bespeaks caution doctrine
This is a defense
Cautionary language, if sufficient, renders the alleged omissions or misrepresentations immaterial as a matter of law
Need meaningful cautionary language
Can’t be boilerplate need to discuss specific risks
EA §21E: statutory safe harbor for certain forward-looking statement made by companies that are subject to the Exchange Act’s continuous reporting provisions
Meaningful cautionary language OR forward-looking statement is immaterial OR plaintiff fails to prove knowing false forward-looking statement
No boilerplate cautionary language must address specific/principal risks
To be meaningful, we have to know what the risks were at that time
Has to be meaningful through the eyes of the person preparing the forecast
Also extends to oral forward-looking statements
In addition to being restricted to reporting companies, the safe harbor is not available to forward-looking statements made in connection with certain types of transactions, such as initial public offerings, tender offers, and going-private transactions
The threshold requirement for the statutory safe harbor is that the challenged statement must be a “forward-looking statement”
Forward-looking statements include projections, plans, and statements of future economic performance
Transactions not covered under the statutory safe harbor may still seek protection under the judicially created “bespeaks caution” doctrine
As long as the firm reveals the principal risks (in cautionary language), the fact that some other event caused problems cannot be dispositive
The cautionary language does not have to identify the very event that causes the forecast to be inaccurate
Majority hold that the meaningful cautionary language defense is available even though the defendant knows the forward looking statement is misleading.
Minority: if D knows it’s misleading, can’t be “meaningful” cautionary language.
Flanchard
Glickman was misappropriating company money; they didn’t disclose it
Why is this material?
The whole reason for investing in this corporation was to essentially invest in Glickman
So if you had disclosed that he was misappropriating company money, it would indicate that he’s not...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Securities Regulations (Duke Cox) Outlines.
Securities Regulations outline from Duke for Professor Cox...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started