Abstract
This law summary analyzes the recent cases where plaintiffs have tried to utilize the scheme liability theory. Even though courts have frequently analyzed claims based on this theory, they approach the issue rather unsystematically, reach inconsistent results, and do not employ a similar analytic structure. Part of this inconsistency is based on the fact that scheme liability is applied in cases involving very different fraudulent practices and against actors with very different functions. Due to this wide range of circumstances, the different approaches of courts may actually be justified. It is probably inappropriate to formulate a single test or rule for deciding scheme liability cases. Instead, courts should approach each case separately, based on the type of defendant and the type of claim
Recommended Citation
Taavi Annus,
Scheme Liability under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
72 Mo. L. Rev.
(2007)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol72/iss3/4