Limiting the Implied Rights of Action Under the Securities Exhange Act of 1934: Dismissing Private Claims Brought Under Section 19

Authors

Seth J. Welner

Abstract

Implied private remedies, often cited as a judicial infringement on congressional power-that is, a violation of the separation of powers-have become commonplace in some areas of securities regulation. The better practice, however, is to limit private litigation in the securities arena and promote an internal resolution of conflicts within self-regulatory organizations (SROs) with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) acting as a congressional watchdog. This was the approach that Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich endorsed in Raymond James with respect to §19 of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, an approach that remains today's standard. This comment considers the possible implications of an alternative holding, and concludes that Judge Kovachevich's ruling prevented further chaos in an already burdened securities industry.

Recommended Citation

Welner, Seth J. (2013) "Limiting the Implied Rights of Action Under the Securities Exhange Act of 1934: Dismissing Private Claims Brought Under Section 19," Florida Historical Quarterly: Vol. 92: No. 2, Article 12.
Available at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/fhq/vol92/iss2/12