Baruch: Wall Street: Security Risk

A Review of Wall Street: Security Risk by Hurd Baruc

Codification and Rule 10b-5

One of the most interesting as well as controversial areas of the securities laws has been the growth of implied liabilities under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule l0(b)-5 promulgated there under. Any attempt to codify the securities laws would probably include an attempt to codify this entire l0b-5 area.\u27 Once the codifiers move into this area, however, there is a strong likelihood that codification will result in reform and revision, and the present scope as well as the future growth and development of federal corporation law under Rule l0b-5 will be profoundly altered.\u27 Thus it would seem that before an attempt is made to codify the body of law that has evolved from Rule l0b-5, the following questions should be considered: Is the way the law in this area has developed injurious to the public interest? Has the legal development under Rule l0b-5 adversely or beneficially affected the securities markets and the public interest? In short, is there any need for codification, reform, or revision in the l0b-5 area

Rule 10b-5 and the Stockholder\u27s Derivative Action

This article focuses upon a new, emerging private cause of action based upon section 10(b) and rule 10b-5-a stockholder\u27s derivative action initiated on behalf of a corporation which has been defrauded in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. Five reported cases, three decided in the last three months of 1964, have sustained a stockholder\u27s derivative suit based upon section 10(b) and rule 10b-5. The significance of these decisions becomes apparent, not only when one considers that the derivative suit has traditionally been an internal corporate matter governed exclusively by state law, but also when one focuses upon the compelling advantages which accrue to the stockholder initiating his derivative action pursuant to the above section and rule

Determinants of polyp Size in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pre-existing polyps, especially large polyps, are known to be the major source for colorectal cancer, but there is limited available information about factors that are associated with polyp size and polyp growth. We aim to determine factors associated with polyp size in different age groups.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Colonoscopy data were prospectively collected from 67 adult gastrointestinal practice sites in the United States between 2002 and 2007 using a computer-generated endoscopic report form. Data were transmitted to and stored in a central data repository, where all asymptomatic white (n = 78352) and black (n = 4289) patients who had a polyp finding on screening colonoscopy were identified. Univariate and multivariate analysis of age, gender, performance site, race, polyp location, number of polyps, and family history as risk factors associated with the size of the largest polyp detected at colonoscopy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In both genders, size of the largest polyp increased progressively with age in all age groups (<it>P </it>< .0001). In subjects ≥ 80 years the relative risk was 1.55 (95% CI, 1.35-1.79) compared to subjects in the youngest age group. With the exception of family history, all study variables were significantly associated with polyp size (<it>P </it>< .0001), with multiple polyps (≥ 2 versus 1) having the strongest risk: 3.41 (95% CI, 3.29-3.54).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In both genders there is a significant increase in polyp size detected during screening colonoscopy with increasing age. Important additional risk factors associated with increasing polyp size are gender, race, polyp location, and number of polyps, with polyp multiplicity being the strongest risk factor. Previous family history of bowel cancer was not a risk factor.</p