Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
DUTY OR NO DUTY? THAT IS THE QUESTION: THE SECOND CIRCUIT REASSERTS THAT A VIOLATION OF ITEM 303'S DUTY TO DISCLOSE CAN ESTABLISH LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 10(B)
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
DUTY OR NO DUTY? THAT IS THE QUESTION: THE SECOND CIRCUIT REASSERTS THAT A VIOLATION OF ITEM 303'S DUTY TO DISCLOSE CAN ESTABLISH LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 10(B)
Do you wish to request the book?
DUTY OR NO DUTY? THAT IS THE QUESTION: THE SECOND CIRCUIT REASSERTS THAT A VIOLATION OF ITEM 303'S DUTY TO DISCLOSE CAN ESTABLISH LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 10(B)
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
DUTY OR NO DUTY? THAT IS THE QUESTION: THE SECOND CIRCUIT REASSERTS THAT A VIOLATION OF ITEM 303'S DUTY TO DISCLOSE CAN ESTABLISH LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 10(B)
2019
Overview
On March 29, 2016, in Indiana Public Retirement Systems v. SAIC, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reaffirmed its earlier conclusion that a violation of the duty to disclose imposed on publicly traded companies by Item 303 of Regulation S-K can constitute a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In so doing, the Second Circuit directly conflicted with a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Cohen v. NVIDIA Corp. (In re NVIDIA Corp. Securities Litigation), despite the fact that both courts relied upon the Third Circuit's Oran v. Stafford opinion in reaching their decisions. This Comment argues that a violation of Item 303 can constitute a violation of Section 10(b), and, further, that the Second Circuit adopted the correct approach because it faithfully construed the underlying regulation and statute, correctly followed earlier jurisprudence, and furthered, not frustrated, the principal goals of the federal securities laws.
Publisher
Boston College School of Law
Subject
