scholarly journals A APLICAÇÃO DO DISGORGEMENT OF PROFITS NO ÂMBITO DA US SECURITY AND EXCHANGES COMISSION (SEC)

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (40) ◽  
pp. 145-162
Author(s):  
Caio César do Nascimento Barbosa ◽  
Glayder Daywerth Pereira Guimarães ◽  
Michael César Silva
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Us Supreme Court

O direito civil do século XXI não se satisfaz mais somente com a reparação dos danos, sendo que avanços da matéria possibilitaram a existência de novos institutos com escopo em teorias protetivas e sistemas de risk management. O ponto de partida do presente estudo é a análise do disgorgement of profits, por meio do exame de recentes decisões envolvendo o referido instituto no âmbito da Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). A pesquisa abordou duas relevantes decisões conexas da US Supreme Court, debatendo suas implicações para este específico setor. O estudo proposto pertence à vertente metodológica jurídico-dogmático. Em relação ao tipo de investigação, foi escolhido, na classificação Witker e Gustin, o tipo jurídico-projetivo. No tocante à técnica de análise do conteúdo, trata-se de pesquisa teórica, a qual se demonstrou possível mediante o estudo da jurisprudência e doutrina. Ao fim, por meio da análise sistemática e aprofundada dos dois julgados, comprovou-se a eficácia do referido instituto, assim como sua constante evolução, de modo que poderá ser aprimorado em futuras decisões pela US Supreme Court.

US Supreme Court clarifies liability standard under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for statements of opinion in registration statements

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 37-42
Author(s):  
Richard Parrino ◽  
Douglas Schwab ◽  
David Wertheimer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Pension Fund ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

Purpose – The purpose of this article is to examine the US Supreme Court’s much anticipated decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Const. Indus. Pension Fund. In this 2015 case, the Supreme Court announced important principles for interpreting the application of the two bases for liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 to statements of opinion expressed in registration statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with public securities offerings. Design/methodology/approach – The article examines the Supreme Court’s articulation of the standards federal courts must apply under Section 11 to determine if opinion statements were untrue statements of a material fact or misleading because they omitted material facts necessary to make the statements of opinion not misleading. The paper identifies a number of the complexities involved in the Supreme Court’s approach and emphasizes the nuanced assessment of the facts surrounding opinion statements courts will be required to undertake by Omnicare. Findings – The Omnicare decision has significant implications for the litigation of Section 11 claims challenging statements of opinion and for the preparation of registration statement disclosures. The Omnicare decision dramatically alters the standards for reviewing Section 11 claims premised on opinions long applied in a number of US federal appellate circuits. The decision is likely to result in more Section 11 claims based on supposedly misleading opinion statements, and potentially in a greater number of Section 11 claims that survive at least an initial motion to dismiss. Omnicare highlights the importance of including in registration statement disclosures meaningful cautionary statements identifying important facts that could cause actual outcomes to differ materially from views expressed in an opinion. Originality/value – Expert guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

US Supreme Court holds that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 826-829
Author(s):  
Charles R Macedo ◽  
Marion P Metelski ◽  
David P Goldberg
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Lanham Act

Insult of Public Officials

2021 ◽  
pp. 388-409
Author(s):  
Christoph Bezemek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Structural Differences

This chapter assesses public insult, looking at the closely related question of ‘fighting words’ and the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. While Chaplinsky’s ‘fighting words’ exception has withered in the United States, it had found a home in Europe where insult laws are widely accepted both by the European Court of Human Rights and in domestic jurisdictions. However, the approach of the European Court is structurally different, turning not on a narrowly defined categorical exception but upon case-by-case proportionality analysis of a kind that the US Supreme Court would eschew. Considering the question of insult to public officials, the chapter focuses again on structural differences in doctrine. Expanding the focus to include the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR), it shows that each proceeds on a rather different conception of ‘public figure’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document