Where is the strongest position available in the face of the assertion that the principle of market fraud inherently opposes negative fraud tactics?
I would say that if the court's presumption facilitates class actions, it does nothing to deter initial manipulation operations.
The asymmetry of information remains exploitable, as when a hedge fund spreads false rumors to cause a stock to fall that it shorted, demonstrating that protection is reactive and not preventive.
The full expression of protection only materializes after proof of fraudulent intent, allowing manipulation to occur upstream.