PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 25, 1995
Securities Private Enforcement Reform Act - Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to declare that a defendant may be liable jointly and severally for damages in an implied private action only if the trier of fact specifically determines that the defendant knowingly engaged in securities fraud. Sets forth a liability allocation scheme to determine the percentage of responsibility among the plaintiff, the defendants, and any other alleged contributors to the harm alleged if the trier of fact finds that a defendant did not engage in knowing securities fraud. Prescribes guidelines for the award of reasonable attorney's fees and related expenses incurred by the prevailing party in any implied private action. Declares that in any implied right of action that is certified as a plaintiff class action: (1) the share of any settlement or final judgment awarded to the representative plaintiff shall be calculated in the same manner as the share awarded to all other members of the plaintiff class; (2) the plaintiff class may not be represented by any attorney who owns or has a beneficial interest in the securities that are the subject of the litigation, or any attorney affiliated with him or her, or any attorney who is obligated to pay remuneration to a third party for assistance in obtaining the representation of any party to the action; and (3) funds disgorged as a result of Securities and Exchange Commission action shall not be distributed as payment for attorney's fees or expenses incurred by private parties seeking distribution of the disgorged funds.
People & committees
Rep. Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) [R-LA-3] · R–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance.
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.681 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.681 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.681 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.681 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.