English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Recent federal court decisions have struggled to apply the Supreme Court's decision in Central Bank v. First Interstate to formulate a standard for when outside professionals should be held liable as primary violators under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. In keeping with the Court's current interpretive methodology, Central Bank and its progeny employ a textualist approach. In this Article, Professor Fisch argues that textualism is an inappropriate approach for interpreting the federal securities laws generally and misguided in light of legislative developments post-dating the Central Bank decision. Instead, Professor Fisch advocates an approach that weighs Congress's recent endorsement of liability for outside professionals against the potential for litigation abuses perceived by the Central Bank Court. The Article concludes that recent federal decisions have been unduly restrictive in their interpretation of section 10(b) liability, and suggests that courts give greater consideration to the nature of the professional-client relationship and the role of liability in furthering the integrity of the securities markets.

The Scope of Private Securities Litigation: In Search of Liability Standards for Secondary Defendants