Talk:Private Securities Litigation Reform Act

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

What's the deal?

So it makes it harder to sue companies for damages over bad stock performance or something like that?--Jerryseinfeld 12:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The law was designed to discourage "strike suits," or class action suits brought by plaintiffs with little financial risk in the company any time the stock price fell. Before this law, there were certain certain "professional plaintiffs" that held a small number of shares in lots of companies. As soon as one of the stocks tanked, the plaitiff would file a suit--usually in partnership with one of a small handful of lawyers that "specialized" in this sort of thing--against the company. These frivolous nuisance suits cost a lot of money to defend against or settle. The law didn't stop strike suits altogether, but it made many harder to bring. If a company commits genuine fraud, it's still possible to bring a class action against them.--Bond Head 19:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dodd's Condo Deal

68.14.84.194, Dodd's condo deal had nothing to do with the PSLRA. The Dems weren't in control of the Senate at the time, and the Chair of the Banking Committee was Al D'Amato, not Dodd. Dodd wasn't even the ranking member on the committee, Paul Sarbanes was. The bill was overwhelmingly supported by both Ds and Rs. And Dodd's condo deal had nothing to do with securities fraud. To suggest that the condo deal has anything to do with the PSLRA is ludicrous. Oh, and your reference is broken, too. Bond Head (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

forward looking

this needs to be added:

PSLRA's Safe Harbors for forward-looking statements, set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c), which protects a forward-looking statement such as a financial projection, if the statement is (1) identified as a forward-looking statement and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language, or (2) is immaterial, or (3) is made without actual knowledge that it is false.

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=79412 http://www.ffhsj.com/index.cfm?pageID=25&itemID=5796 http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34Act/sec21E.html --71.111.192.79 (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]