Show simple item record

Fraud on the Market: An Action Without a Cause

dc.contributor.authorRose, Amanda M.
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-15T21:07:25Z
dc.date.available2018-06-15T21:07:25Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifier.citation160 University of Pennsylvania Law Review PeNNumbra 87 (2011)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1803/8889
dc.descriptionarticle published in a law reviewen_US
dc.description.abstractThis is a response to William W. Bratton & Michael L. Wachter, The Political Economy of Fraud on the Market, 160 U. PA. L. REV. 69 (2011). Bratton and Wachter argue that fraud-on-the-market class actions (FOTM) should be eliminated and replaced with stepped-up public enforcement efforts targeted at individual wrongdoers (rather than the corporate enterprise, the FOTM target of choice). In this Response, I do not disagree: My own scholarship has similarly emphasized the benefits of shifting away from FOTM to greater reliance on public enforcement mechanisms. Instead, I take the opportunity to elaborate on the deterrence and corporate governance shortcomings of FOTM, strengthening further the case Bratton and Wachter make for an enhanced public enforcement role.en_US
dc.format.extent1 PDF (12 pages)en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Pennsylvania Law Reviewen_US
dc.subjectsecurities frauden_US
dc.subjectcorporate governanceen_US
dc.subject.lcshCommercial lawen_US
dc.subject.lcshLawen_US
dc.titleFraud on the Market: An Action Without a Causeen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.ssrn-urihttps://ssrn.com/abstract=1962065


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record