미국 증권거래법상 증권사기에 대한 주주의 사적 소권 범위 - Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivative Traders 판례를 중심으로 -
Private Right of Action under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act - focusing on Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivative Traders-
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Since 1994 the Supreme Court has decided three significant cases with respect to the private right of action under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The first case is Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver in 1994 holding that section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 do not create an implied private cause of action for aiding and abetting, and the second case is Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. in 2008, which reaffirmed its determination of Central Bank of Denver, holding that customers and suppliers of a company that issued fraudulent financial statements to its shareholders were not liable to those shareholders because those shareholders could not be said to have relied on any fraudulent conduct or speech on the part of the customers or suppliers. The Supreme Court, however, has not provided the guide to distinguish the primary liability for making a false or misleading statement from the liability of secondary actors. As securities fraud cases have increased in the aftermath of the economic crisis since 2008, the guide has been disputed more in order to compensate investors properly for the damage from securities fraud in the market. In terms of the liability of secondary actors, such as the investment adviser, for the violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, the Supreme Court addressed the more clarified standard in its decision of Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivative Traders. The Court held that the “maker” of a statement (or a misstatement) is the person or entity with ultimate authority over the statement, including its content and whether and how to communicate it, and without such control or authority a person may be said to suggest a statement but cannot be deemed its “maker”. This Court's decision limited the implied private right of action under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and rejected to consider the unique and actual relationship between the secondary actor, the investment adviser, and the fund, the primary violator. While the blurry line between primary and secondary misconduct has been clarified in a way that bars to private lawsuits brought under Section 10(b) against all secondary actors, there still remain issues to be discussed. This paper first presents the history of the private right of action under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, including Court precedents and legislative actions, as the factual background leading to the Janus case, and then analyzes the Supreme Court's decision in the Janus case to provide deeper understanding and current status of the private right of action under the U.S. securities regulations.
Abstract
Since 1994 the Supreme Court has decided three significant cases with respect to the private right of action under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The first case is Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver in 1994 holding that section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 do not create an implied private cause of action for aiding and abetting, and the second case is Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. in 2008, which reaffirmed its determination of Central Bank of Denver, holding that customers and suppliers of a company that issued fraudulent financial statements to its shareholders were not liable to those shareholders because those shareholders could not be said to have relied on any fraudulent conduct or speech on the part of the customers or suppliers. The Supreme Court, however, has not provided the guide to distinguish the primary liability for making a false or misleading statement from the liability of secondary actors. As securities fraud cases have increased in the aftermath of the economic crisis since 2008, the guide has been disputed more in order to compensate investors properly for the damage from securities fraud in the market. In terms of the liability of secondary actors, such as the investment adviser, for the violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, the Supreme Court addressed the more clarified standard in its decision of Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivative Traders. The Court held that the “maker” of a statement (or a misstatement) is the person or entity with ultimate authority over the statement, including its content and whether and how to communicate it, and without such control or authority a person may be said to suggest a statement but cannot be deemed its “maker”. This Court's decision limited the implied private right of action under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and rejected to consider the unique and actual relationship between the secondary actor, the investment adviser, and the fund, the primary violator. While the blurry line between primary and secondary misconduct has been clarified in a way that bars to private lawsuits brought under Section 10(b) against all secondary actors, there still remain issues to be discussed. This paper first presents the history of the private right of action under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, including Court precedents and legislative actions, as the factual background leading to the Janus case, and then analyzes the Supreme Court's decision in the Janus case to provide deeper understanding and current status of the private right of action under the U.S. securities regulations.
참고문헌 (21)
- 임재연, "미국증권법" (2009), 박영사
- 김홍기, "미국법상 회계사, 변호사 등 전문가의 증권사기책임", 법학연구, (53) (2004)
- 김희철, "Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific Atlanta, Inc. 판례에 관한 분석", 상사판례연구, 23(2), pp.69~105 (2010), 한국상사판례학회
- Charles Alan Wright, "Federal Practice and Procedure" (2012), West Group
- Larry D. Soderquist, "Securities Regulation (7th ed.)" (2010), Foundation Press
- Stephen J. Choi, "Securities Regulation: Cases and Analysis (3d ed.)" (2011), Foundation Press
- Bryan P. King, "The Effects of an Undefined ‘Ultimate Authority’ Standard for Rule 10b-5 Claims: Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders", North Carolina Banking Institute, 16 (2012)
- Daniel J. Kramer, "U.S. Supreme Court Limits Securities Fraud Liability to Parties with ‘Ultimate Authority’ over Misstatements" (2011), Paul Weiss publication
- Darryl P. Rains, "The Future of Control Person Liability after Janus", Securities Litigation Report, 9 (2012)
- Elizabeth Cosenza, "Is the Third Time the Charm? Janus and the Proper Balance Between Primary and Secondary Actor Liability Under Section 10(b)", Cardozo Law Review, 33 (2012)
- Enzo Incandela, "Private Recourse Under § 10(b) on Life Support: The Displacement of Liability and Private Securities Fraud Action after Janus v. First Derivative", Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 43 (2012)
- James D. Redwood, "To Make or to Mar: The Supreme Court Turns Away Another Securities Law Plaintiff", University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law, 14 (2012)
- Jeffrey Gordon, "Janus Capital Group v. First Derivative Traders: Only the Supreme Court can ‘Make’ a Tree", The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation (2011)
- John H. Langbeinn, "The Secret Life of the Trust: The Trust as an Instrument of Commerce", Yale Law Journal, 107 (1997)
- Jonathan Eisenberg, "Beyond the Basics: Seventy-Five Defenses Securities Litigators Need to Know", Business Lawyer, 62 (2007)
- Lewis D. Lowenfels, "Rule 10b-5’s ‘In Connection With’:A Nexus for Securities Fraud", Business Lawyer, 57 (2001)
- Noam Noked, "The Supreme Court’s Recent Focus on 10b-5 Cases", The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation (2012)
- Norman S. Poser, "The Supreme Court's Janus Capital Case", The Review of Securities & Commodities Regulation, 44 (2011)
- Roger Wiegley, "New Liability Exposure for Intermediaries in Private Placements", The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation (2011)
- Robert F. Carangelo, "The 10b-5 Guide: A Survey of 2010-2011 Securities Fraud Litigation", Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, ~ (2012)
- U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Securities Fraud Liability Actors" (2011)