Share, , Google Plus, Pinterest,

Print

Posted in:

Five Benefits of Section 18 – A Brand New Weapon for Institutions

images

Five Benefits of Section 18 – A Brand New Weapon for Institutions

Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, while seldom used in the past, has been increasingly used by institutional investors in suits against banks and other entities.  The advantages of Section 18 are as follows:

  1. Plaintiff need not allege scienter.
  2. Unlike Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, plaintiffs need not allege privity.  Section 18 attributes liability to “[a]ny person who shall make or cause to be made” a material misstatement.
  3. Although a plaintiff must allege “eyeball reliance” on the SEC filings covered by the statute, this is not a difficult task for an institutional investor. Indeed, the ways in which the specific statements are misleading or fail to state material facts can be persuasively enunciated by investment professionals who are, in effect, experts.  The allegations can present defense counsel with unique arguments they had not anticipated and give the case momentum.  Accordingly, the investor can present to the court a compelling case of how someone was misled by the disclosures, rather than a case based on anonymous reliance pursuant to the “fraud-on-the-market” doctrine.
  4. There is a right to a jury trial.
  5. There is some authority that investment advisors can sue on behalf of clients.

Section 18 does, obviously, possess some restrictions. The safety should be openly traded. The document should be filed “pursuant towards the Exchange Act or any rule or regulation thereunder on in almost any undertaking found in a registration statement.” The cost should be “affected” through the statement. The “damages” should be “caused” through the reliance. The restrictions or repose period seems to become one and 3 years, correspondingly, just like the Section 13 from the Investments Act. Some courts have needed plaintiffs to plead details developing a strong inference of negligence.

In conclusion, Section 18 may have the ability to achieve defendants that Section 12(a)(2) cannot and it is “eyeball reliance” needs may really boost the merits of the institutional plantiffs’ situation.

[View source.]

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *