Towards a Theory of CyberPlace: A Proposal for a New Legal Framework

This article discusses whether the existing legal framework for property and places should apply to the electronic medium, or whether the uniqueness of the Internet requires a different characterization. The source of the right of the owner of an Internet site to legally control access to and use of the site and its content is the tort law of trespass and the law of contract. The sources of the right of users to freely access and use Internet content are the policies of free speech and public accommodation. Part I of this paper reviews the common law trespass theories that courts have employed to regulate online activities. Part II considers the de nition of “place” and whether particular uses of the Internet are “places of public accommodation.” Part III proposes a new legal framework that could serve as a basis for legislative action to promote both of these policies in cyberspace. This framework recognizes the unique qualities of the Internet, incorporating both the public policy favoring freedom of expression and the private property interest in controlling unauthorized use of Internet resources

Use of Economic Analysis in Fraud on the Market Cases

In 1988, in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson,1 (Basic), the United States Supreme Court adopted the fraud on the market theory in order to create a presumption of reliance in a Security & Exchange Commissions Rule 10(b) securities fraud case. This article first explains the economic and legal background behind the fraud on the market presumption. Then, the landmark case of Basic is examined for guidance in applying the presumption and proving defenses to that presumption. Lastly, it is shown how economic analysis can be used in proving or disproving fraud on the market, including an empirical study of the events in Basic. The Court\u27s decision in Basic invites the use of economic/financial analysis, without recognition or guidance concerning that use. This article illustrates the importance of financial analysis in pursuing and defending a securities fraud case based on the fraud on the market presumption

Use of Economic Analysis in Fraud on the Market Cases

In 1988, in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson,1 (Basic), the United States Supreme Court adopted the fraud on the market theory in order to create a presumption of reliance in a Security & Exchange Commissions Rule 10(b) securities fraud case. This article first explains the economic and legal background behind the fraud on the market presumption. Then, the landmark case of Basic is examined for guidance in applying the presumption and proving defenses to that presumption. Lastly, it is shown how economic analysis can be used in proving or disproving fraud on the market, including an empirical study of the events in Basic. The Court\u27s decision in Basic invites the use of economic/financial analysis, without recognition or guidance concerning that use. This article illustrates the importance of financial analysis in pursuing and defending a securities fraud case based on the fraud on the market presumption