A Historical Approach to Negligent Misrepresentation and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | A Historical Approach to Negligent Misrepresentation and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) on Facebook
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | A Historical Approach to Negligent Misrepresentation and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) on Twitter
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | A Historical Approach to Negligent Misrepresentation and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) on Email
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | A Historical Approach to Negligent Misrepresentation and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) on LinkedIn
My views on these subjects owe much to my collaborators, especially Michael Barr, Megan Shearer, and Michael Wellman, with whom I have been studying the behavior of algorithmic traders in financial markets, and Howell Jackson, with whom I have been presenting on social media and capital markets at PIFS-IOSCO’s trainings for securities regulators. All errors are my own. Thanks to the participants at the University of Chicago’s Symposium on “How AI Will Change the Law” for helpful comments, and to the editors of the University of Chicago Law Review for their helpful insights.
This Essay argues that the increasing prevalence and sophistication of artificial intelligence (AI) will push securities regulation toward a more systems-oriented approach. This approach will replace securities law’s emphasis, in areas like manipulation, on forms of enforcement targeted at specific individuals and accompanied by punitive sanctions with a greater focus on ex ante rules designed to shape an ecology of actors and information.
He thanks his clerks Nathan Pinnell and Isabella Soparkar for outstanding research assistance.
Professor Monica Haymond’s Intervention and Universal Remedies article invites scholars to focus on the distinctive ways that public law litigation plays out in practice. This Essay takes up her challenge. By questioning common assumptions at the core of structural-reform litigation, this Essay explains the dangers of consent decrees, settlements, and broad precedents. It then goes on to argue that intervention is an important check on these risks, and should be much more freely available in structural reform cases.
He thanks Malcolm Yeary, Maggie Wells, Savannah Kostrzewa, and the University of Chicago Law Review Online team.
The Florida defendant files a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)—asserting that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Should the court grant it? More specifically, does having an anonymous John Doe as a defendant categorically preclude diversity jurisdiction?