Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

submittedVersion

Publication Date

3-2014

Abstract

This article examines the extent to which lawyers advising on the disclosure documents of their clients issued to the securities markets should be responsible for their clients’ disclosure failures. It identifies the following problems with the current framework. First, there is a lack of objective due diligence standards which lawyers are expected to meet when they are advising on public disclosure documents. Second, except for takeovers, lawyers are not subject to public enforcement actions even if they have not acted with due care and diligence in ensuring that their clients comply with their disclosure obligations. Third, private enforcement actions against lawyers are weak or non-existent. Fourth, the lack of clarity on the reporting obligation of lawyers, who suspect securities fraud committed by, or on behalf of, their corporate clients, to report up the ladder and the lack of obligation to report externally to a regulator, do not encourage lawyers to make the relevant inquiries. This article argues that the solution has to lie in imposing public oversight over the lawyers advising their clients on public disclosure documents. This is already the position taken for takeovers and there is no reason why such oversight should not be extended to all disclosure documents.

Keywords

Securities market, lawyers, securities fraud, gatekeepers

Discipline

Asian Studies | Securities Law

Research Areas

Corporate, Finance and Securities Law

Publication

Singapore Academy of Law Journal

Volume

26

Issue

1

First Page

137

Last Page

168

ISSN

0219-6638

Publisher

Singapore Academy of Law

Copyright Owner and License

Author

Download

Share

COinS