We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
BASIC'S "BITTER HARVEST": THE COURT'S CONTINUED ADHERENCE TO A FLAWED ECONOMIC THEORY IN HALLIBURTON.
- Authors
Kline, Julia
- Abstract
The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) determination in the 2014 case Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund Inc. that defendants in American federal securities fraud class action lawsuits can use evidence to rebut the presumption that an investor relied on a security's price, and it mentions the author's claim that the USSC has continued to adhere to a flawed economic theory since the Basic Inc. v. Levinson securities fraud case in 1988. Judge-made law is also examined.
- Subjects
UNITED States; HALLIBURTON Co. v. Erica P. John Fund Inc. (Supreme Court case); BASIC Inc. v. Levinson (Supreme Court case); RELIANCE (Law); SECURITIES fraud; REBUTTAL evidence; PRESUMPTIONS (Law); LAW &; economics; JUDGE-made law; ACTIONS &; defenses (Law); HISTORY
- Publication
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 2014, Vol 48, Issue 2, p557
- ISSN
0147-9857
- Publication type
Article