Bright Line, Substantial Participation, or Something Else: Who is a Primary Violator Under Rule 10b-5?

This Note analyzes the competing theories currently used by courts and commentators to determine when a secondary actor’s conduct arises to the level of a primary violation under section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b-5 on a theory of aiding and abetting primary violators. This Note proposes a workable and logical standard that can be used to differentiate a primary violation from mere aiding and abetting. Part I of the Note discusses the decision in Central Bank of Denver and the resulting dilemma that faced the lower courts in determining when a secondary actor is a primary violator. Part II provides an analytical discussion of the emergence of two tests often used to determine whether a secondary actor is a primary violator: the “bright line” and “substantial participation” tests. Finally, Part III discusses the elements of a primary violation of section 10(b) and rule 10b-5 as they relate to a secondary actor and proposes a workable and logical test to determine when a secondary actor’s conduct rises to the level of a primary violation

Socioeconomic impact of photovoltaic power at Schuchuli, Arizona

The social and economic impact of photovoltaic power on a small, remote native American village is studied. Village history, group life, energy use in general, and the use of photovoltaic-powered appliances are discussed. No significant impacts due to the photovoltaic power system were observed

Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta: Do Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 Require a Misstatement or Omission? (pre-publication draft)

This version is a draft submitted for publication and accepted prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling. The final version, published by QLR and also posted on Digital Commons, was modified subsequently to the Supreme Court ruling. Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta promises to be the most important securities litigation case to reach the Supreme Court since Central Bank of Denver. In this important case, Stoneridge presents the Supreme Court with the opportunity to clarify the application of its ruling in Central Bank to liability for secondary actors under section 10(b) and rule 10b-5. This Article points out that the fundamental question plaguing the lower courts since Central Bank and resulting in two circuit splits is whether section 10(b) requires that a secondary actor actually make a misstatement or omission in order to be held liable under the rule 10b-5 implied cause of action. This Article asserts that there is ample support in Supreme Court precedent for concluding that the word “deceptive” in section 10(b) does require a misstatement or omission and that the Supreme Court should so hold in Stoneridge

Racial Reconciliation: A Biblical Framework

American society is greatly polarized and divided on many issues, including issues relative to racial reconciliation. Attempts at progress in this area are impeded by the United States’s historical backdrop of slavery, the statesponsored oppression of Jim Crow laws, and personal racism, among other complications. Even the American church tolerated and justified these racial divides. Modern discussions are plagued by the widespread misuse of important terms as well as disagreements on what racial reconciliation looks like and how to achieve it. Starting from the belief that God has spoken authoritatively on all issues, this article attempts to provide a biblical framework for addressing issues of racial reconciliation from a Christian perspective. This begins with a biblical model of racial reconciliation, a biblical definition for racism, and the ideological foundation that only the Christian worldview provides. The rest of the framework discusses relevant principles of biblical justice that should govern issues of law and policy, including some discussion of the proper jurisdiction of the church and civil government. Accordingly, only through the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is there hope for true racial reconciliation

Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta: Do Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 Require a Misstatement or Omission?

Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta promises to be the most important securities litigation case to reach the Supreme Court since Central Bank of Denver. In this important case, Stoneridge presents the Supreme Court with the opportunity to clarify the application of its ruling in Central Bank to liability for secondary actors under section 10(b) and rule 10b-5. This Article points out that the fundamental question plaguing the lower courts since Central Bank and resulting in two circuit splits is whether section 10(b) requires that a secondary actor actually make a misstatement or omission in order to be held liable under the rule 10b-5 implied cause of action. This Article asserts that there is ample support in Supreme Court precedent for concluding that the word “deceptive” in section 10(b) does require a misstatement or omission and that the Supreme Court should so hold in Stoneridge

Identification of a potent serum factor that causes desensitization of the receptor for C-Type natriuretic peptide

BACKGROUND: Guanylyl cyclase-B (GC-B; NPR-B), the receptor for C-type natriuretic peptide (CNP) is rapidly and effectively desensitized by a factor(s) in serum. Given the potential importance of this receptor in remodeling after tissue injury, identification of the serum factor(s) is of significant medical importance. RESULTS: Partial purification of desensitization activity in serum by DEAE-Sepharose and reverse phase C18 chromatography, followed by mass spectroscopy, identified peptide sequences identical to those of apolipoprotein A2 (Apo A2), a known component of high density lipoprotein (HDL). Apo A2, however, could be eliminated as the active desensitization factor. Never the less, substantial desensitization activity was associated with purified preparations of bovine or human HDL. Since HDL is a well-known transporter of various lipids and phospholipids, we extracted either HDL or partially purified serum preparations with butanol and all activity extracted into the solvent. Of various lipophilic signaling molecules known to be associated with HDL, a prominent component is sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P). We therefore tested authentic S1P as well as other known components of HDL (sphingosylphosphorylcholine; platelet activating factor) for activity; only S1P caused desensitization of GC-B. S1P was relatively potent, causing one-half maximal desensitization of GC-B at concentrations of 5–10 nM. These effects were seen within a few minutes after addition. Lysophosphatidic acid, another component of serum capable of desensitizing GC-B, was only effective at Micromolar concentrations. The pathway by which serum or S1P desensitizes GC-B seems unique in that pertussis toxin failed to inhibit GC-B desensitization, and yet blocked serum or S1P activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) or Akt/protein kinase B (Akt/PKB). CONCLUSION: Since the concentrations of S1P that desensitize GC-B are well within serum physiological ranges, this mitogenic signaling molecule likely functions as a strong adversary of the CNP/GC-B signaling pathway in the regulation of cell proliferation and other growth factor-induced phenotypes. The mechanism by which S1P desensitizes GC-B appears different than the known S1P signaling pathways