Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

due diligence defense

Read a random definition: sleeping partner

A quick definition of due diligence defense:

The due diligence defense is a way for people involved in creating a registration statement for securities to defend themselves against claims of fraud. This defense says that if they did enough investigating and still didn't find any problems, they shouldn't be held responsible for any misrepresentations in the statement. The defense is available to underwriters, officers and directors of the issuer, and any experts who helped prepare the statement. The standards for meeting the defense depend on whether the person is an expert or non-expert and whether the misrepresented part of the statement was prepared by an expert or not. Non-experts must have reasonably investigated the non-expertised portions of the statement and had no reason to believe the misrepresentation was untrue. Experts have a duty to investigate their expertised portions and must have a reasonable belief that the statement is true.

A more thorough explanation:

The due diligence defense is a legal defense used against claims of securities fraud under Section 11 of the Securities Act. It is based on the idea that parties involved in creating a registration statement should not be held liable for misrepresentations if they conducted a sufficient investigation.

Under Section 11, the following parties may be held liable for securities fraud if a registration statement contains a misrepresentation:

  • Issuers
  • Underwriters
  • Officers and directors of the issuer
  • Experts who helped prepare the registration statement

The due diligence defense is not available for issuers, as they are strictly liable. For other parties, the defense depends on whether they are considered experts or non-experts, and whether the misrepresented part of the registration statement was prepared by experts or not.

Section 11 does not specify which parties are experts and non-experts, but generally:

  • Top executive officers of the issuer, underwriters, and outside directors of the issuer with some specific role in the offering are considered non-experts.
  • Experts are individuals who gave professional authority to a statement in the registration statement, and include auditors, lawyers, engineers, or appraisers.

The standard that individuals must meet to satisfy the due diligence defense depends on their expert status and the expertise status of the registration statement.

  • Non-experts’ standard for non-expertised portions: Reasonably investigate the non-expertised portions of the registration statement, and had reasonable ground to believe and actually did believe the misrepresentation in those portions.
  • Non-experts’ standard for expertised portions: Have no reasonable grounds to believe that the portion was untrue and did not actually believe it was untrue.
  • Experts’ standard for expertised portions: Have a duty of reasonable investigation in their expertised portions and must have a reasonable ground to believe and actually did believe the statement.
  • Experts’ standard for non-expertised portions: Have no liability for non-expertised portions.

An underwriter is a non-expert for a portion of the registration statement that includes financial projections. The underwriter conducts a reasonable investigation of the non-expertised portion and believes it to be true. However, the financial projections turn out to be inaccurate. The underwriter can use the due diligence defense because they met the standard for non-experts’ investigation of non-expertised portions.

due diligence | due process

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:12
@RoaldDahl: Likely not however it could mean nothing
RoaldDahl
16:15
So if it means nothing does that mean something?
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:17
Possibly
RoaldDahl
16:26
Cool
RoaldDahl
16:26
thank you!!!! i hope it means something
pinkandblue
16:31
fart
IrishDinosaur
16:36
Mich R gang lesgooo
Did anyone else get that random get to know nova email?
HopefullyInLawSchool
17:21
Ya it was sent to all YM applicants
starfishies
17:37
Anyone get the NDLS email inviting you to apply for something even though they haven’t made a decision on your app yet
17:38
Better yet I got the email and I was rejected last month
starfishies
17:38
Wtf
starfishies
17:39
and the deadline is in like a week what is this
any cardozo movement?
BatmanBeyond
18:01
Sent a LOCI via portal, but I'm wondering if email would have gotten me a swifter response
BatmanBeyond
18:02
This whole hold/wait-list/reserve system is a headache
loci already?
BatmanBeyond
18:09
If the odds are like 1-2% I don't think it matters much by the numbers
12:11
I got the same NDLS email
OrangeThing
12:18
I think the user profiles are broken
19:29
Any word out of Notre Dame?
19:29
Only the invitation to apply for LSE
19:29
Anyone received a decision from NDLS?
19:50
when did u guys apply that just heard from umich? they havent even glanced at my app yet
0:30
how am i supposed to spy on people when profile links are broken?
Right. Broken links smh
I've been UR since first/second week of Jan, no updates otherwise, is that a bad sign? At or above median LSAT and above 75th gpa.
The profile links are not working for me. anybody else?
13:18
i’m in the same boat mastermonkey but with lower stats. i hope i hear back by mid march
CheeseIsMyLoveLanguage
13:24
@mastermonkey45: Looking at some of the recent decisions in relation to when they went complete, I'd say it's a good sign. It seems many declines were sent within about 5-6 weeks of completion. Given those were applications that were SENT in January, I'd say that means you're still solidly in the running. :)
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.