Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Reforming Securities Litigation Reform: Restructuring the Relationship between Public and Private Enforcement of Rule 10B-5

Amanda M. Rose
Columbia Law Review
Vol. 108, No. 6 (Oct., 2008), pp. 1301-1364
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40041787
Page Count: 64
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Reforming Securities Litigation Reform: Restructuring the Relationship between Public and Private Enforcement of Rule 10B-5
Preview not available

Abstract

Commentators have long debated how to reform the controversial Rule 10b-5 class action without pausing to ask whether the game is worth the candle. Is private enforcement of Rule 10b-5 worth preserving, or might we be better off with exclusive public enforcement? This fundamental but neglected question demands attention today more than ever. An academic consensus has emerged that the typical Rule 10b-5 class action cannot be defended on compensatory grounds. That leaves the oft-cited, but undertheorized, rationale that private enforcement is a "necessary supplement" to the securities fraud deterrence efforts of the SEC. When this justification is critically examined, however, it proves to be highly debatable. Law and economics scholarship teaches that "bounty hunter" enforcement of an overbroad law, like Rule 10b-5, may lead to overdeterrence and stymie governmental efforts to set effective enforcement policy (even assuming away "strike suits" and the agency costs that attend class action litigation); if private enforcement is nevertheless desirable--a contestable proposition--it is because a world without it might result in even greater deviations from optimal deterrence, due to SEC budgetary constraints, inefficiency, and/or capture. By carefully explicating the relative advantages and disadvantages of private Rule 10b-5 enforcement versus exclusive public enforcement, this Article reveals a new and better way to remedy the shortcomings of the Rule 10b-5 class action. It proposes that policymakers adopt an "oversight approach" to securities litigation reform by, for example, granting the SEC the ability to screen which Rule 10b-5 class actions may be filed, and against whom. By muting the overdeterrence threat of private litigation and placing the SEC back at the helm of Rule 10b-5 enforcement policy, this approach would mitigate the primary disadvantages of private enforcement. Moreover, by preserving a private check on SEC inefficiency and regulatory capture, and allowing the SEC to continue to supplement its budget with private enforcement resources, it would do so without eliminating the primary advantages of the current system. This approach stands in contrast to prior securities litigation reforms, which have responded to the overdeterrence threat posed by Rule 10b-5 class actions by rigidly narrowing the scope of private liability.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
1301
    1301
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1302
    1302
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1303
    1303
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1304
    1304
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1305
    1305
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1306
    1306
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1307
    1307
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1308
    1308
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1309
    1309
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1310
    1310
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1311
    1311
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1312
    1312
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1313
    1313
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1314
    1314
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1315
    1315
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1316
    1316
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1317
    1317
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1318
    1318
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1319
    1319
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1320
    1320
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1321
    1321
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1322
    1322
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1323
    1323
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1324
    1324
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1325
    1325
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1326
    1326
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1327
    1327
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1328
    1328
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1329
    1329
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1330
    1330
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1331
    1331
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1332
    1332
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1333
    1333
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1334
    1334
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1335
    1335
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1336
    1336
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1337
    1337
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1338
    1338
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1339
    1339
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1340
    1340
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1341
    1341
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1342
    1342
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1343
    1343
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1344
    1344
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1345
    1345
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1346
    1346
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1347
    1347
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1348
    1348
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1349
    1349
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1350
    1350
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1351
    1351
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1352
    1352
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1353
    1353
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1354
    1354
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1355
    1355
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1356
    1356
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1357
    1357
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1358
    1358
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1359
    1359
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1360
    1360
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1361
    1361
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1362
    1362
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1363
    1363
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1364
    1364