<oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd"><dc:coverage>United States, Georgia, Clarke County, Athens, 33.96095, -83.37794</dc:coverage><dc:creator>Sachs, Margaret V.</dc:creator><dc:date>1988-01-01</dc:date><dc:description>&lt;p&gt;Courts have long assumed the existence of exclusive federal jurisdiction over private actions implied from section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934&lt;sup&gt; &lt;/sup&gt;and rule 10b-5. The result is not only to restrict forum choice for rule 10b-5 claimants but also to generate a host of questions concerning the extent of federal authority: whether rule 10b-5 actions are exempt from the claim and issue preclusive effects of state court decisions; whether state courts can hear defenses and state-created claims that involve rule 10b-5; and whether federal courts can stay rule 10b-5 actions in deference to state court litigation. In dividing on these questions, courts invariably fail to examine the underlying premise: that exclusive federal jurisdiction has a valid legal basis. The thesis of this Article is that exclusive federal jurisdiction over rule 10b-5 actions lacks a legitimate foundation and should be rejected. State courts should share with federal courts the adjudication of rule 10b-5 actions.&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description><dc:description>Rule 10b-5 -- Jurisdiction -- Civil Procedure -- Constitutional Law -- Securities Law</dc:description><dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format><dc:rights>http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</dc:rights><dc:subject>Law--History</dc:subject><dc:subject>Law--Study and teaching</dc:subject><dc:subject>Taxation--Law and legislation</dc:subject><dc:title>Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction for Implied Rule 10b-5 Actions: The Emperor Has No Clothes</dc:title><dc:type>Text</dc:type></oai_dc:dc>