Loyola University Chicago

Institute For Investor Protection

School of Law

Notable Scholarship About Private Securities Fraud Litigation

Securities fraud litigation has been the subject of much study. Many scholars have attempted to explain, refine, or redefine securities fraud jurisprudence. Some notable scholarship is listed below.



  •    How do Judges Maximize? (The Same Way Everybody Else Does—Boundedly): Rules of Thumb in Securities Fraud Opinions, Stephen M. Bainbridge & G. Mitu Gulati, 51 Emory Law Journal 83, 118-36 (2002).
  •   The “Duty” To Be a Rational Shareholder, David A. Hoffman, 90 Minnesota Law Review 537 (2006).
  •   Living in a Material World: Strict Liability Under Rule 10b-5, Michael J. Kaufman, 19 Capital University Law Review 1 (1990).
  •     The Uniform Rule of Liability Under the Federal Securities Laws: The Judicial Creation of a Comprehensive Scheme of Investor Insurance, Michael J. Kaufman, 63 Temple Law Review 61 (1990).  
  •    Immaterial Lies: Condoning Deceit in the Name of Securities Regulation, Stefan J. Padfield, 61 Case Western Reserve Law Review 143 (2010). 
  •    Is Puffery Material to Investors? Maybe We Should Ask Them, Stefan J. Padfield, 10 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business and Employment Law 339 (2008).
  •    Who Should Do the Math? Materiality Issues in Disclosures That Require Investors to Calculate the Bottom Line, Stefan J. Padfield, 34 Pepperdine Law Review 927 (2007).



  •    The Locus of Corporate Scienter, Patricia S. Abril & Ann Morales Olazábal, 2006 Columbia Business Law Review 81 (2006).
  •    Fraud by Hindsight, Mitu Gulati, et al., 98 Northwestern University Law Review, 773 (2004).  
  •    Defining Recklessness: A Doctrinal Approach to Deterrence of Secondary Market Securities Fraud, Ann Morales Olazábal, 2010 
  •  Wisconsin Law Review 1415 (2010).
  •    The Search for “Middle Ground”: Towards a Harmonized Interpretation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act’s New Pleading Standard, Ann Morales Olazábal, 6 Stanford Journal of Law & Business 153 (2001).
  •    When Fraud Pays: Executive Self-Dealing and the Failure of Self-Restraint, Daniel T. Ostas, 44 American Business Law Journal 571, 574 (2007).
  •    (Mis)Judging Intent: The Fundamental Attribution Error in Federal Securities Laws, Victor D. Quintanilla, 7 New York University Journal of Law and Business 195 (2010). 
  •    Tellabs v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.: The Weighing Game, John M. Wunderlich, Note, 39 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 613 (2008).


Using Confidential Witnesses in Pleading Securities Fraud

  •    Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Proper Role of Confidential Informants in Securities Fraud Litigation, Michael J. Kaufman & John M. Wunderlich, 36 Securities Regulation Law Journal 345 (2008). 
  •    Confidential Witnesses in Securities Litigation, Gideon Mark, 36 Journal of Corporate Law 551 (2011).
  •    Confidential Informants in Private Litigation: Balancing Interests in Anonymity and Disclosure, Ethan D. Wohl, 12 Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law 551 (2007).

The Seventh Amendment and Pleadings

  •    Pleading Reform or Unconstitutional Encroachment? An Analysis of the Seventh Amendment Implications of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, Allan Horwich & Sean Siekkinen, 35 Securities Regulation Law Journal 4 (2007).
  •    Why the Motion to Dismiss is Now Unconstitutional, Suja A. Thomas, 92 Minnesota Law Review 1851 (2008).


Amending Pleadings

  •    Amending Pleadings in Securities Fraud Litigation After Tellabs, John M. Wunderlich, 37 Securities Regulation Law Journal 361 (2009).


Presumptions of Reliance

  •    Which Came First, the Fraud or the Market: Is the Fraud-Created-the-Market Theory Valid Under Rule 10b-5? Peter J. Dennin, Note, 69 Fordham Law Review 2611 (2001). 
  •    Fraud on the Market Meets Behavioral Finance, Fredrick C. Dunbar and Dana Heller, 31 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 455 
  •    Fraud Created the Market: An Unwise and Unwarranted Extension of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, Julie A. Herzog, 63 George Washington Law Review 359 (1995).
  •    Basic At Twenty: Rethinking Fraud On the Market, Donald C. Langevoort, 2009 Wisconsin Law Review S151 (2009). 
  •    Good Finance, Bad Economics: An Analysis of the Fraud-on-the-Market Theory, Jonathan R. Macey & Geoffrey P. Miller, 42 Stanford Law Review 1059 (1990).


Class Certification

  •    Exploding the Blackmail Myth: A New Perspective on Class Action Settlements, Allan Kanner & Tibor Nagy, 57 Baylor Law Review 681 (2005).
  •    The Unjustified Judicial Creation of Class Certification Merits Trials in Securities Fraud Actions, Michael J. Kaufman & John M. Wunderlich, 43 University Michigan Journal of Law Reform 323 (2010).
  •    “Chipping Away”: The Misguided Trend Toward Resolving Merits Disputes as Part of the Class Certification Calculus, Steig D. Olson, 43 University of San Francisco Law Review 935 (2009). 
  •    “We’re Scared to Death”: Class Certification and Blackmail, Charles Silver, 78 New York University Law Review 1357 (2003).


Loss Causation

  •    Dura, Loss Causation, and Mutual Funds: A Requiem for Private Claims?, Mercer E. Bullard,  76 University of Cincinnati Law 
     Review 559 (2008). 
  •    Causation by Presumption? Why the Supreme Court Should Reject Phantom Losses and Reverse Broudo, John C. Coffee, Jr., 60 
     Business Lawyer 533 (2005).
  •    What’s Brewing in Dura v. Broudo? The Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Review the Supreme Court’s Opinion and its Import for Securities Fraud Litigation, Patrick J. Coughlin, et al., 37 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 1 (2005).
  •    Dura’s Effect on Securities Class Actions, Scotland M. Duncan, Comment, 27 Journal of Law and Commerce 137 (2008).
  •    The Loss Causation Requirement for Rule 10b-5 Causes of Action: The Implication of Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, Allen Ferrell & Atanu Saha, 63 Business Lawyer 163 (2007).
  •    Cause for Concern: Causation and Federal Securities Fraud, Jill E. Fisch, 94 Iowa Law Review 811 (2009).
  •    Understanding Dura, Merritt B. Fox, 60 Business Lawyer 1547 (2005).
  •    At a Loss: Congress, the Supreme Court and Causation under the Federal Securities Laws, Michael J. Kaufman, 2 New York University Journal of Law and Business 1 (2005). 
  •    Loss Causation: Exposing a Fraud on Securities Law Jurisprudence, Michael J. Kaufman, 24 Indiana Law Review 357, 357 (1991).
  •    Compared to What? Econometric Evidence and the Counterfactual Difficulty, Donald C. Langevoort, 35 Journal of Corporate Law 
     183 (2009).
  •    Loss Causation in Fraud-on-the-Market Cases Post-Dura Pharmaceuticals, Ann Morales Olazábal, 3 Berkeley Business Law Journal 337 (2006). 
  •    Rediscovering the Economics of Loss Causation, Madge S. Thorsen, et al., 6 Journal of Business and Securities Law 93 (2006). 
  •    Why Shareholders Want Their CEOs To Lie More After Dura Pharmaceuticals, James C. Spindler, 95 Georgetown Law Journal 653 (2007).


Event Studies and Securities Litigation

  •    Estimating Financial Fraud Damages with Response Coefficients, Esther Bruegger & Frederick C. Dunbar, 35 Journal of Corporate Law 11 (2009).
  •    Use of Modern Finance Theory in Securities Fraud Cases Involving Actively Traded Securities, Daniel R. Fischel, 38 Business Lawyer 1 (1982).
  •    Does the Efficient Market Theory Help Us Do Justice in a Time of Madness? William O. Fisher, 54 Emory Law Journal 843 (2005).
  •    Proper Event Study Analysis in Securities Litigation, Frank Torchio, 35 Journal of Corporate Law 159 (2009).


The Statute of Limitations

  •    Dura-Tion: A New Paradigm for Construing the Statute of Limitations in Securities Fraud Class Actions, Elizabeth Cosenza, 62 
     Baylor Law Review 681 (2010).
  •    Toward a Just Measure of Repose: The Statute of Limitations for Securities Fraud, Michael J. Kaufman & John M. Wunderlich, 52 William & Mary Law Review 1547 (2011).
  •    SEC Rule 10b-5 and its News Statute of Limitations: The Circuits Defy The Supreme Court, Lewis D. Lowenfels & Alan R. Bromberg, 51 Business Lawyer 309 (1996).



  •    Reputational Damages in Securities Litigation, Barbara Black, 35 Journal of Corporate Law 169 (2009).
  •    Optimal Damages in Securities Cases, Frank H. Easterbrook & Daniel R. Fischel, 52 University of Chicago Law Review 611 (1985).


The Role of Institutional Investors in Securities Fraud Litigation

  •    Let the Money Do the Monitoring: How Institutional Investors Can Reduce Agency Costs in Securities Class Actions, Elliott J. Weiss & John S. Beckerman, 104 Yale Law Journal 2053 (1995).


Analyzing Class Action Filings and Settlements

  •    Lying and Getting Caught: An Empirical Study of the Effects of Securities Class Action Settlements on Targeted Firms, Lynn Bai, James D. Cox & Randall S. Thomas, 158 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1877 (2010).
  •    Reforming the Securities Class Action: An Essay on Deterrence and Its Implementation, John C. Coffee, Jr., 106 Columbia Law Review 1534 (2006).
  •    How the Merits Matter: Directors’ and Officers’ Insurance and Securities Settlements, Tom Baker & Sean J. Griffith, 157 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 755 (2009).  
  •    The Screening Effect of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, Stephen J. Choi et al., 6 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 35 (2009). 
  •    Do the Merits Matter Less After the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act?, Stephen J. Choi, 23 Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 598 (2007).
  •    Do the Merits Matter? A Study of Settlements in Securities Class Actions, Janet Cooper Alexander, 43 Stanford Law Review 497 (1991).
  •    There are Plaintiffs . . . There are Plaintiffs: An Empirical Analysis of Securities Class Action Settlements, James Cox, et al., 61 
     Vanderbilt Law Review 355 (2008).
  •    Do the Merits Matter More? The Impact of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act,  Marilyn F. Johnson et al., 23 Journal of Law, 
     Economics and Organization 627 (2007).
  •    Did the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act Work?, Michael A. Perino, 2003 University of Illinois Law Review 913 (2003).
  •    The Merits Do Matter, Joel Seligman, 108 Harvard Law Review 438 (1994).


The Relationship Between Public and Private Enforcement

  •    Rescuing the Private Attorney General: Why the Model of the Lawyer As Bounty Hunter Is Not Working, John C. Coffee, Jr., 42 Maryland Law Review 215 (1983)
  •    Making Securities Fraud Class Actions Virtuous, James D. Cox, 39 Arizona Law Review 497  (1997).
  •    The Diminishing Role of the Private Attorney General in Antitrust and Securities Class Action Cases Aided by the Supreme Court, Carl W. Hittinger & Jarod M. Bona, 4 Journal of Business & Technology Law 167 (2009).
  •    The Multienforcer Approach to Securities Fraud Deterrence: A Critical Analysis, Amanda M. Rose, 158 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2173 (2010)
  •    Reforming Securities Litigation Reform: Restructuring the Relationship Between Public and Private Enforcement of Rule 10b-5, Amanda M. Rose, 108 Columbia Law Review 1301 (2008).


Attorneys’ Fees

  •    Do Class Action Lawyers Make Too Little?, Brian T. Fitzpatrick, 158 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2043 (2010).


Arbitration and the Securities Laws

  •    Eliminating Securities Fraud Class Actions Under the Radar, Barbara Black, 2009 Columbia Business Law Review 802 (2009).
  •    Substantive Fairness in Securities Arbitration, Edward Burnet & Jennifer J. Johnson, 76 University of Cincinnati Law Review 459 (2008). 
  •    When Perception Changes Reality: An Empirical Study of Investors’ Views of the Fairness of Securities Arbitration, Jill Gross & Barbara Black, 2008 Journal of Dispute Resolution 349 (2008).


Judicial Hostility to Private Securities Fraud Litigation

  •    Corporate Corruption and the Complicity of Congress and the Supreme Court—The Tortuous Path from Central Bank to Stoneridge Investment Partners, Charles W. Murdock, 6 Berkeley Business Law Journal 131 (2009).
  •    Why Not Tell the Truth? Deceptive Practices and the Economic Meltdown, Charles W. Murdock, 41 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 801 (2010). 
  •    The Assault on Section 11 of the Securities Act: A Study in Judicial Activism, Marc I. Steinberg & Brent A. Kirby, 63 Rutgers Law Review 1 (2010).

The Scope of Defendant’s Duties Under the Securities Laws

  •    Paradise Lost: § 10(b) After Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Elizabeth Cosenza, 11 Chicago Journal of International Law 343 (2011).
  •    Reading Stoneridge Carefully: A Duty-Based Approach to Reliance and Third-Party Liability Under Rule 10b-5, Donald C. Langevoort, 158 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2125 (2010).