Judging Securities Law

Dave Hoffman

Dave Hoffman is the Murray Shusterman Professor of Transactional and Business Law at Temple Law School. He specializes in law and psychology, contracts, and quantitative analysis of civil procedure. He currently teaches contracts, civil procedure, corporations, and law and economics.

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Stuart says:

    It’s not just that the dollar amounts at stake are bigger, it’s also that the economic consequences are bigger. Securities law is critical because it governs capital formation and storage of value. The Supreme Court’s lack of interest and/or expertise in this area could be a time bomb. In fact, I’d say that the Court’s “jurisprudence” in most areas of business law is laughable: intellectual property, bankruptcy, securities – these are areas that are critical to the economy, which I get the sense the Court takes from a sense of duty and without real enthusiasm.

    This is a consequence of the “professionalization” of the Supreme Court. No knock on the Chief Justice, but his “expertise” as a litigator was in crafting arguments for the courts. To a somewhat lesser extent, that was Alito’s as well, though he was a prosecutor too. Ginsburg? Breyer? Stevens? Kennedy? Scalia? What do these people know about substantive law? I’m not suggesting that any practitioner can have the sort of broad experience in minutiae that would allow him/her to be familiar with many substantive areas of law, but it would be helpful to have someone on the Court whose legal experience is somewhat less rarefied than the current inhabitants’. When is the last time a partner at a large firm went on the court?

  2. Dabit: SLUSA in the SCOTUS

    In Merrill, Lynch v. Dabit, the Supreme Court (per Justice Stevens and by 8-0) addressed suits brought by investors who claim they held on to their investments in reliance on allegedly fraudulent statements by issuers and analysts. Under the Supreme

  3. I live at 74408 Commonwealth in Seattle. Been up here before?