Do Institutional Investors Value the Rule 10b-5 Private Right of Action? Evidence from Investors' Trading Behavior following Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd

Robert P. Bartlett

The Journal of Legal Studies, 2015, vol. 44, issue 1, 183 - 227

Abstract: In Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., the US Supreme Court limited investors' ability to bring private Rule 10b-5 securities fraud actions to cases involving securities purchased on a US stock exchange or otherwise purchased in the United States. Because many foreign firms' securities trade simultaneously on non-US venues and on US exchanges, institutional investors claimed after Morrison that they would look to such firms' US-traded securities to preserve their rights under Rule 10b-5. This paper tests this prediction using proprietary trading data from 378 institutional investors. The analysis reveals no evidence that investors reallocated trades in cross-listed issuers to the United States, nor did they reallocate foreign trading to cross-listed issuers that are now clearly subject to 10b-5 securities suits. This persistence in trading appears across both money managers and pension plan sponsors, notwithstanding sponsors' more vocal criticism of Morrison and their prominence in 10b-5 litigation.

Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/680992 (application/pdf)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/680992 (text/html)
Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/680992

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The Journal of Legal Studies from University of Chicago Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Journals Division ().