The Quarterly Journal of Judicial Law Views

The Quarterly Journal of Judicial Law Views

Definition and Elements of “Materiality of Information” Under Stock Market Corporations' Obligation to Disclose Information; A Comparative Study of Iran, U.S. and E.U. Legal Systems

Document Type : p

Authors
mohammad soltani
Elyas Noee
Assistant Prof., Department of Economic law, Faculty of Law, SBU University, Tehran, iran. Available at: m_soltani@sbu.ac.ir, Address: Shahid Beheshti University, Shahid Shahriari Square, Evin, Tehran, Iran, Postcal Code: 1983969411
10.22034/jlvi.2024.2004906.1027
Abstract
A fundamental principle of capital market law is issuers’ duty to disclose information with the aim of protecting investors by giving them the opportunity to make deliberate decisions. As mere information disclosure, of any quality or quantity, does not attract investors’ attention, particular characteristics are to be considered. Among these characteristics, “Materiality” is of higher importance and worth studying with a comparative glance through laws, regulations and judicial precedent. Iranian laws have not focused on this filed but it seems that based on Disclosure Directive 2007, a oneـstep criterion exists to assess the materiality of information: “the impact on the price or investor’s decision”. But as it is evident in the two cases known as "TSC" and "BASIC" of America and the "Regulation on Market Abuse" of Europe, we should not be satisfied with this appearance, because this criterion is generic and presumptive, two pillars The other means "conventional investor's approach" and "conventional possibility of influencing investors' decision" is also hidden in it.
 
Keywords
disclosure
material information
securities
investor
reasonable likelihood

  •  

    • Adediran, A. O. (2023), “Disclosing corporate diversity”, Virginia Law Review, No.109(2).
    • Aronson, T. (1983), English Grammar Digest, New Jersey: Prentice ـ
    • Baum, I., & D. Solomon (2019), “When should you abstain? call for global rule of insider trading”, University of Cincinnati Law Review, No.88(1).
    • Baum, I., & D. Solomon (2020), “Materiality in MAR: Critical and Comparative Analysis”, Bocconi Legal Papers,14.
    • Bengtzen, M. (2016), “EU and UK investment disclosure liability: at cross purposes?”, Capital Markets Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3.
    • Bengtzen, M. (October 2015), “The materiality standard for public company disclosure: Maintain What Works”, Business Roundtable, Available at: www.roundtable.org on October 29, 2019, Washington D.C.
    • Choudhury, B. (2016), “Social Disclosure”, Berkeley Business Law Journal, Vol. 13, Issue 1.
    • Dombalagian, O. H. (2018), “Texas Gulf Sulphur and Information Disclosure Policy”, SMU Law Review, vol. 71, no. 3.
    • Duffy, M. J. (2012), “Testing Good Securities Disclosure: Tales of the Reasonable Investor”, Monash University Law Review, Vol. 38, Issue 2.
    • Ferrell, A., & R. Andrew (2015), “Price Impact, Materiality, and Halliburton II.”, Washington University Law Review, Vol. 93, Issue 2.
    • Fox, M.B. (2015), “Halliburton II: What It’s All About”, Journal of Financial Regulation, Vol. 1, No. 1.
    • Gattuso, T. (2023), “The panuwat snowball: correlation does not equal materiality”, Catholic University Law Review, No.72(3).
    • Heminway, J. M. (Winter 2009), “Female Investors and Securities Fraud: Is the Reasonable Investor a Woman”, William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, Vol. 15, Issue 2.
    • Hewings, M. (2005), Advanced Grammar in Use, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Hewitt, J. O. (1977), “Developing Concepts of Materiality and Disclosure”, The Business Lawyer, Vol. 32, No. 3.
    • Horwich, A. (2018 ـ 2019), “A Call for the SEC to Adopt More Safe Harbors that Limit the Reach of Rule 10b ـ 5”, The Business Lawyer, Vol. 74, Issue 1.
    • Horwich, A. (2011), “An Inquiry into the Perception of Materiality as an Element of Scienter Under SEC Rule 10b ـ 5“, The Business Lawyer, Vol. 67, No. 1.
    • Rose, A. M. (Fall 2017), “The Reasonable Investor of Federal Securities Law: Insights from Tort Law's Reasonable Person & Suggested Reforms”, Journal of Corporation Law, Vol. 43, Issue 1.
    • Sachs, M. (2006), “Materiality and Social Change: The Case for Replacing the Reasonable Investor with the Least Sophisticated Investor in Inefficient Markets”, Tulane Law Review, Vol. 81, Issue 2.
    • Sale, H. A. (2019), “Disclosure's Purposes”, Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 107, Issue 4.
    • Sauer, R. C. (2007), “The Erosion of the Materiality Standard in the Enforcement of the Federal Securities Laws”, The Business Lawyer, Vol. 62, No. 2.
    • Schipani, C. A., & H. N. Seyhun. (2016), “Defining Material, Nonpublic: What Should Constitute Illegal Insider Information”, Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law, Vol. 21, Issue 2.
    • Schrampfer Azar, B. (2003), Understanding and Using English Grammar, 3rd edn, New York: Longman.
    • Schulzke, K. S., & G. Berger ـ Walliser (2017), “Toward a Unified Theory of Materiality in Securities Law”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 56, Issue 1.
    • Vizcarra, H. V. (2020), “The reasonable investor and climate ـ related information: changing expectations for financial disclosures”, Environmental Law Reporter, No.50(2).
    • Washington Pollock, C. (1982), Communicate What You Mean (Grammar of High ـ Level ESL Students), New Jersey: Prentice ـ Hall, Inc.
    • Wiese, J. l. (summer 1968), “Disclosure of Insider Information ـ Materiality and Texas Gulf Sulphur”, Maryland Law Review, vol. 28, No. 3.

  • Receive Date 16 June 2023
  • Revise Date 10 February 2024
  • Accept Date 02 June 2024