skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 119644 Find in a Library
Title: Essay: Six Competing Currents of Rule 10b-5 Jurisprudence
Journal: Indiana Law Review  Volume:21  Issue:3  Dated:(1988)  Pages:625-667
Author(s): D M Phillips
Date Published: 1988
Page Count: 43
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's treatment of rule 10b-5 insider trading cases and identifies several attitudes competing for the Court's attention when it considers rule 10b-5 cases.
Abstract: The competing attitudes or currents are identified as idealism, traditionalism, and economic behaviorism (considered to be substantive positions) as well as paradigm case analysis, literalism, and textual structuralism (considered to be interpretive strategies). Idealism would expand rule 10b-5 liability while traditionalism would contain it. While economic behaviorism neither favors or rejects rule 10b-5 liability, it would determine 10b-5 liability by measuring the economic incentive effects of the liability on the parties concerned. Paradigm case analysis determines liability by the similarity and fit between the facts of a given case and certain paradigm fact situations. Literalism favors the language of a statute or regulation in the interpretive process, while textual structuralism emphasizes, in interpreting any one part of the regulation, the harmony among various parts of the regulatory scheme. Each of the competing currents is discussed in detail, along with positions on the currents taken by various Supreme Court justices. 198 footnotes.
Main Term(s): Securities fraud
Index Term(s): US Supreme Court decisions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.