Exploring Relationships Between Resume Fraud and Individual Differences

Existing research on resume fraud highlights the commonality and consequences of resume misrepresentations, yet almost no research exists aiming to explain the occurrence of this intentional behaviour. The goal of this study was to explore the relationships between personality traits previously linked to deception (conscientiousness and honesty/humility), resume misrepresentations and acceptance of these misrepresentations. An online survey method of data collection was used during which participants constructed a resume and filled out various measures pertaining to individual difference and resume misrepresentation. The results of this study provide an initial understanding of the existing categories of resume misrepresentations and the extent to which participants misrepresent. Findings indicate interconnected relationships between acceptability of resume misrepresentations, actual resume misrepresentations, conscientiousness and honesty/humility. Potential implications of findings and study limitations are discussed

In Connection With What?: Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice and the Applicability of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, in which the Court will clarify whether the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act precludes a state law class action alleging a scheme of fraud involving misrepresentations about transactions in covered-securities

Distinguishing personal belief from scientific knowledge for the betterment of killer whale welfare – a commentary

We contest publication of Marino et al. regarding captive killer whale (Orcinus orca) welfare because of misrepresentations of available data and the use of citations that do not support assertions. Marino et al. misrepresent stress response concepts and erroneously cite studies, which appear to support Marino et al.’s philosophical beliefs regarding the cetacean hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis. To be clear, these misrepresentations are not differences of scientific opinion, as the authors’ conclusions lack any scientific basis. More extensive review of Marino et al.’s citations reveal a dearth of empirical evidence to support their assertions. Further, Marino et al.’s approach to animal welfare is not consistent with conventional veterinary approaches to animal welfare, including their apparent opposition to use of preventative and therapeutic veterinary interventions. While Marino et al. argue that killer whales’ cognitive and spatial needs preclude management of this species under human care, misrepresentation of the citations used to support this opinion invalidates their arguments. Misleading interpretations of data relative to killer whales’ cognitive and emotional needs and specious and unsubstantiated comparisons with states experienced by humans with posttraumatic stress disorder and other conditions, represent a number of strategies used to misrepresent knowledge regarding killer whale welfare. These misrepresentations and fallacies are inconsistent with scientific ethical standards for credible, peer-reviewed journals (ICMJE, 2018), and are barriers to rigorous discourse and identification of strategies for optimizing killer whale welfare. Assertions in the paper amount to nothing more than a compilation of conclusory, philosophical statements. We would also like to mention that manuscripts such as Marino et al.’s do great damage to the fields of comparative psychology and to behavioral science as a whole

Rethinking Janus: Preserving Primary-Participant Liability in SEC Antifraud Enforcement Actions

The Securities and Exchange Commission relies heavily on the securities laws’ antifraud provisions in fulfilling its role as watchdog of the U.S. securities markets. But the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders has frustrated the SEC’s efforts to keep fraud at bay. There the Court drastically narrowed the scope of actors who can qualify as primary participants in misrepresentations perpetrated in connection with the purchase or sale of securities under Rule 10b-5(b). This Note argues that Janus’s holding creates an incongruence in the SEC’s ability to enforce the securities laws’ misrepresentation provisions, with the SEC’s ability to prosecute misrepresentations now varying depending on the stage of securities dealings at which the misrepresentation occurred. This result runs counter to the SEC’s purpose in creating Rule 10b-5 and to Congress’s desire that the SEC enjoy broad authority to pursue fraudsters. This Note analyzes solutions for curing this incongruence, including the SEC’s recent bid for judicial deference to its interpretations of the relevant regulations and statutes

Alejandro Parra and Dante’s eighth circle of hell

This commentary places Alejandro Parra’s very long list of plagiarisms and data misrepresentations within the context of Dante’s classification of human foibles. The responses from two Argentinean universities are described, along with continuing examples of Parra’s misrepresentations

Is Jesus a Hindu? S.C. Vasu and Multiple Madhva Misrepresentations

Misperceptions and misrepresentations are frequently linked to complicated dynamics between those who are misperceived and those who do the misperceiving. Oftentimes such dynamics are manifestations of underlying social, political, or, in the cases described in this issue of the Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin, religious differences. The Hindu and the Christian traditions share a long history of mutual misrepresentations and misperceptions. Many of the authors in this issue of the Bulletin may offer detailed analyses of such misperceptions as they have been described by virtuoso Hindu thinkers such as Ram Mohan Roy, Gandhi-ji, and, in more recent times, BJP activists. In contrast, I will explore a case where mutual misperceptions have established a peculiar dynamic by focusing on the misperceptions that the Madhva school of Vedanta has been influenced by Christian beliefs. There is a theory that the Christian influence in Madhva Vedanta has resulted in a lively and provocative dialogue, one that is not only based on mutual misrepresentations by Christians and Hindus of one another but that actually serves to reinforce such misrepresentations

A Critique of “A Critique of Lester’s Account of Liberty”: A reply to Frederick 2013

Frederick 2013 (the critique) offers criticisms of the Escape from Leviathan (EfL) theory of libertarian liberty and also of its compatibility with preference-utilitarian welfare and private-property anarchy. This reply to the critique first explains the underlying philosophical problem with libertarian liberty and EfL’s proposed solution. It then goes through the critique in detail showing that it does not grasp the problem or the solution and offers only misrepresentations and unsound criticisms

The Fraud-on-the-Market Tort

Fraud on the market is at the core of contemporary securities law, permitting 10b-5 class actions to proceed without direct proof of investor reliance on a misrepresentation. Yet the ambiguities of this idea have fractured the Supreme Court from its initial recognition of the doctrine in Basic v. Levinson to its recent decision in Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds. Amidst divergent views of the coherence and advisability of liability for fraud on the market a fundamental question lurks: is a suit for damages that invokes the fraud-on-the-market theory a claim for common law deceit, such that liability is properly limited by requirements such as scienter and loss causation, or is it an indirect regulatory enforcement action that should be unconstrained by these requirements so that liability can better serve its deterrent and compensatory purposes? Rejecting both of these options, we argue for a third way. Fraud-on-the-market claims are not private attorney general actions; they are genuine tort claims through which victims seek redress for having been wronged. Yet the wrong differs fundamentally in substance from the wrong of deceit. Building on a careful analysis of Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, Basic v. Levinson, and common law, we articulate the unique character of the fraud-on-the-market tort. Rooted not in deceit but instead in the Congressionally recognized right of investors to trust in the integrity of securities markets, it does not protect investors from being deceived, but rather protects them against economic loss caused by intentional distortions of market prices. This simultaneously explains why fraud-on-the-market plaintiffs are properly freed from having to prove reliance and why the Supreme Court was perhaps justified in imposing restrictions on liability that are foreign to the common law