Legal Origins and Securities Fraud — A Comment

• Autores: John Armour
• Localización: Lloyd's maritime and commercial law quarterly, ISSN 0306-2945, Nº. 4, 2019, págs. 631-634
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • It is a great honour to be asked to comment on Judge Easterbrook’s lecture in this prestigious and thought-provoking series. It is no understatement to say that when, as a graduate student, I first read his book, The Economic Structure of Corporate Law, it transformed the way I thought about the subject, as indeed it did for a whole generation of students of corporate law. I have likewise enjoyed reading many of his illuminating judicial opinions over the years. Tonight’s talk was delivered with his characteristic combination of eloquence and incisiveness that have made his writings—both academic and judicial—so filled with impact. The main thrust of his lecture has been an insightful analysis of the judicial role in securities fraud litigation in the US, presented as a case study of the way in which judges in a common law system can and do develop the law in incremental ways that enhance its functionality. Specifically, he argues that the six doctrinal developments he describes have the collective consequence of lowering the costs of fraud litigation. My comment centres on the following question: what exactly is significant—in the sense of having potentially causal relevance for financial development—about the judicial role in this case study?