Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMacey, Jonathan
dc.contributor.authorMiller, Geoffrey
dc.date2021-11-25T13:34:19.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:36:43Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:36:43Z
dc.date.issued1990-01-01T00:00:00-08:00
dc.identifierfss_papers/1721
dc.identifier.contextkey1770496
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/973
dc.description.abstractThe Supreme Court's endorsement of the fraud-on-the-market theory in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson established the efficient capital markets hypothesis (ECMH), a cornerstone of modern finance theory, as a decisive tool for resolving legal disputes involving securities fraud and matters of corporate disclosure. Although the ECMH has long been an integral part of legal scholarship on the nature and purpose of securities regulation, courts have treated it with suspicion, except when ignoring or misapplying it. This article analyzes the adoption of the ECMH by the Court in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson.
dc.titleGood Finance, Bad Economics: An Analysis of the Fraud on the Market Theory
dc.source.journaltitleFaculty Scholarship Series
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:36:43Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1721
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2741&context=fss_papers&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Good_Finance__Bad_Economics__A ...
Size:
2.249Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record