From what I understand, Central Bank was a cry from the court encouraging congress to codify implied third party or scheme liability. Congress recognized this, and created section 104 of PSLRA of 1995. Clearly, if Congress had intended that scheme liability was to have the same bite as violations of 10(b) or 10b-5, it would have done so. Instead, it created a specific statute for aiding and abetting. While I wish that Congress would review that statute, I think this was the right decision.
From what I understand, Central Bank was a cry from the court encouraging congress to codify implied third party or scheme liability. Congress recognized this, and created section 104 of PSLRA of 1995. Clearly, if Congress had intended that scheme liability was to have the same bite as violations of 10(b) or 10b-5, it would have done so. Instead, it created a specific statute for aiding and abetting. While I wish that Congress would review that statute, I think this was the right decision.
felttk2 3 years ago
nicely done.
bnsnv 4 years ago