Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

due diligence defense

Read a random definition: expectant heir

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

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
17:24
i'll be lucky to afford a home lol
17:24
omg yess
International status generally being a debuff sucks tho for sure
LegalUsername
17:26
There are waitlist sessions for GULC? I never got one after receiving the SPWL.
LegalUsername
17:27
Or maybe it's because I got it yesterday?
SplitOnMe
17:27
yeah they happened a while ago
theres one for NU coming up
17:29
Georgetown waitlists 4000 people a year, they basically have to divvy the waitlistees up across multiple sessions over time
yeah I'll be logged into the NU one so they don't ding me for missing but no shot I'll actually be able to pay attention bc I'll be working
17:30
Imagine being the admissions staffer(s) who need to monitor Q&A for a 4,000 person zoom
USNWR needs to just bump schools back 20 places if they waitlist more than like 10% of apps
17:32
Penn Purge, the reprise
Everyone who was on the WL at the time got that invite but you might not have gotten it if you applied later
Re: GULC WL session
i didnt get it but i believe i received the wl notif after the email went out which like, fair
17:34
It *is* somewhat tricky to plan waitlists, because there are a whole bunch of subgroups you need there. Not just the stats you need to tune and needs people fill (URM, veteran, regional balance, international, STEM), but buckets like "These are the specific STEM majors we might take if we have a bunch of STEM majors go elsewhere, and we've locked down our GPA median, and we need to shore up our LSAT median, and our aid budget is almost exhausted so we need people that would accept a waitlist A with minimal aid (not the 180s)
17:38
And how much "padding" you need in your waitlist is inversely related to how patient applicants will be for that school (HYS can cover their bases with a small waitlist because most people on the list would drop everything and commit; Georgetown needs a large waitlist because a lot of people on their list will end up with better options)
17:38
But even understanding why schools do this, the result sucks for anyone on the WL
kimchi queen if you see this im sorry but i dont have the talent to paint birds on my nails and i have shaky hands today so i went with skittle nails
KimchiQueen
17:47
@manifestT14acceptances: Haha no need to apologize! Skittles and candy style nail art is super cute!
LegalUsername
17:48
Just praying for the WL gods now :(
trees1234567
17:49
Oh damn penn wtf sorry to everyone that got hit
@KimchiQueen: thank you i do like how they came out i always feel bad fielding suggestions and then doing something else
KimchiQueen
18:07
Suggestions can always be used next time! No need to feel bad :)
any idea if we will hear from usc today?
even if it is an R, I just want to know. I want my cycle over so badly
@jb2028: how many people are part of the hls slack rn?
fizzyyogurtdrink
22:42
@anxiouslydiligentmeerkat: Are you on the USC waitlist?
@fizzyyogurtdrink: I haven't even received my initial decision
fizzyyogurtdrink
22:52
@anxiouslydiligentmeerkat: Hopefully, you will hear from them soon. I'm hoping to get off the waitlist :/
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.