What Counts as Price Impact for Securities Fraud Purposes?

24 Pages Posted: 11 Mar 2015 Last revised: 4 Mar 2016

See all articles by Richard A. Booth

Richard A. Booth

Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law; ECGI

Date Written: March 9, 2015

Abstract

The Supreme Court has ruled that in a securities fraud action arising under Rule 10b-5, class action status will be denied if the defendant can show that the alleged deception had no impact on market price. In a related development, the courts have also held that investors cannot recover for losses from materialization of risk – from occurrence of an event whose risk was misrepresented – but rather may recover only for the difference between the price paid and the price that would have obtained if the truth had been known about the risk when the investor bought or sold. Taken together, these developments will require the courts to address the component parts of any decrease in price that gives rise to a fraud claim. As shown here, a change in the market price of a particular stock may come from several different sources. A decrease (or increase) in price may result from new information as to expected return or cost of capital or one-time outflows (or inflows) of cash – including those attributable to materialization of risk. Moreover, changes in expected return or cost of capital may be attributable either to company-specific news (and clearly compensable) or more general economic conditions (and not clearly compensable). Once it is recognized that a price change may flow from any one of these sources or a combination thereof, it becomes apparent that some such claims are derivative in nature and should give rise to an action for the benefit of the corporation – and all of the stockholders – and not just for the buyers (or sellers). Moreover, after derivative recovery, stockholders will be in the same position they would have occupied in the absence of fraud. So there is no reason to compensate for the supposed direct claims that remain. This is especially so since most investors are diversified and since assessing damages against the company merely transfers the loss from one group of investors (buyers or sellers) to another (holders). The bottom line – and the implication of parsing the elements of damages in a claim for securities fraud – is that such claims should be litigated as derivative actions.

Keywords: securities fraud, class action, corrective disclosure, price impact, materialization, expected return, cost of capital, company-specific news, derivative action, direct action, Rule 10b-5, class certification, materiality, loss causation

JEL Classification: K22

Suggested Citation

Booth, Richard A., What Counts as Price Impact for Securities Fraud Purposes? (March 9, 2015). Forthcoming in Virginia Law & Business Review, Villanova Law/Public Policy Research Paper No. 2015-1003, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2575884 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2575884

Richard A. Booth (Contact Author)

Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law ( email )

299 North Spring Mill Road
Villanova, PA 19085
United States
6105197068 (Phone)
610595672 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/law/staffadmin/Faculty%20Directory/biodetail.html?mail=booth@law

ECGI ( email )

c/o the Royal Academies of Belgium
Rue Ducale 1 Hertogsstraat
1000 Brussels
Belgium
2022622028 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/law/academics/faculty/Facultyprofiles/RichardBooth.html

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
132
Abstract Views
1,495
Rank
390,441
PlumX Metrics