Skip to main content
Immaterial Lies: Condoning Deceit in the Name of Securities Regulation
Case Western Reserve Law Review (2010)
  • Stefan Padfield, University of Akron

The financial crisis of 2008-2009 is once again raising the issue of investor trust and confidence in the market. Investors are questioning how managers could have taken such significant risks in the subprime lending and credit default swap markets without apparently providing adequate disclosure to the market. The pending flood of lawsuits following in the wake of this financial crisis provides an opportunity, however, for courts to restore some of this lost trust. This Article argues that one of the ways courts can do this is by curtailing their over-dependence on materiality determinations as the basis for dismissing what they deem to be frivolous lawsuits under Rule 10b-5. There are at least four good reasons for doing so. First, condoning managerial misstatements on the basis of immateriality arguably has a negative impact on investor confidence because whenever courts find a misstatement to be immaterial as a matter of law they are effectively concluding that there will be no relief for shareholders even if the statement was made with full knowledge of its falsity and with the requisite intent to defraud. Second, the materiality “safety valve” doctrines that have evolved to assist courts in dismissing frivolous suits are often in direct conflict with Supreme Court guidance as to both the proper definition and analysis of materiality in the context of Rule 10b-5. Third, the routine categorization of managerial misstatements as immaterial in order to dismiss frivolous suits creates a tension with the disclosure rules, which are premised on ideals of full and fair disclosure and often turn on materiality determinations. Finally, the dependence on materiality is unnecessary because other elements of Rule 10b-5, such as scienter, have been strengthened to the point where they allow courts to deal with the problem of frivolous suits without having to rule on the issue of materiality.

Publication Date
Citation Information
Stefan Padfield, Immaterial Lies: Condoning Deceit in the Name of Securities Regulation, 61 Case Western Reserve Law Review (forthcoming 2010).