LIABILITY UNDER THE ’33 ACT

Section 11

1. A material misrepresentation or omission in a registration statement when it became effective will subject the issuer and (subject to due diligence defenses) a variety of persons associated with either the issuer or the distribution to damages in a suit brought by any person who bought securities issued pursuant to that registration statement

2. Anyone who buys stock issued pursuant to a defective registration statement has standing to sue under §11. There is no requirement that the purchaser show any sort of reliance on the registration statement or the statutory prospectus

   1. Nor is it the plaintiff’s burden to show causation or injury

3. There are some limits.

   1. the plaintiff must not have been aware of the truth at the time he bought the securities.

   2. strict statute of limitations: within one year after discovery of the falsity or omission was or should have been made, and in any event no more than three years after the security was offered to the public

   3. the plaintiff have to show that the securities purchased were issued pursuant to the registration statement in question

      1. The courts have read §11 literally to impose a tracing requirement on the plaintiff and high statistical probabilities are no substitute for tracing

4. For the issuer, there is no defense at all to culpability

   1. Beyond the strict liability of the issuer, due diligence is a defense available for all other persons specifically made subject to suit by §11(a)

5. List of defendants 11(a)

   1. issuers

   2. Signors

      1. NOTE T or F: You do not want to be a signor of the registration statement

   3. Directors

   4. Underwriters

   5. Senior officers

   6. Experts

6. §11(b)(3) expertised v. other portions of the registration statement. An expertised portion of the registration statement is one prepared by or on the authority of an expert

   1. expertised portion:

      1. expert is liable for misstatements or omissions unless “he had, after reasonable investigation, reasonable ground to believe and did believe, at the time such part of the registration statement became effective” that the statements therein were complete and accurate

      2. All other non-issuer defendants may raise the defense that they “had no reasonable ground to believe, and did not believe” that there was any inaccuracy or omission

      3. In other words, the burden of due diligence investigation lies solely upon the expert; the others have a qualified right to rely on his efforts

   2. non-expertised portions of the registration statement:

      1. the signatories of the registration statement, the directors, and the underwriters are all subject to the duty to investigate and are able to raise the defense of due diligence only if “after reasonable investigation” they had “reasonable ground to believe and did believe” that the statements therein were true and complete

      2. Everyone must investigate, in other words, or risk the consequences

   3. There must be investigation and, after such investigation, no reason to doubt the accuracy of the registration statement. The lead underwriter carries out the investigation, then the whole underwriting syndicate is protected.

      1. Each underwriter is liable for their allotment amount only.

7. BarChris drew a distinction between corporate insiders (management) and outsiders (non-management directors), and in turn between outsiders who have special expertise or involvement in the distribution (e.g. directors who are the company’s lawyers or investment bankers) and others. Among these, there seems to be a sliding scale of responsibility based on what can realistically be expected of the particular defendant.

   1. At one end of this scale, top managers of the issuer are held to the...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Securities Regulations (Duke Cox) Outlines.