Digital Commons Network^™

The Deregulation Of Private Capital And The Decline Of The Public Company, Elisabeth De Fontenay

Faculty Scholarship

From its inception, the federal securities law regime created and enforced a major divide between public and private capital raising. Firms that chose to “go public” took on substantial disclosure burdens, but in exchange were given the exclusive right to raise capital from the general public. Over time, however, the disclosure quid pro quo has been subverted: Public companies are still asked to disclose, yet capital is flooding into private companies with regulators’ blessing.

This Article provides a critique of the new public-private divide centered on its information effects. While regulators may have hoped for both the private and public …

The Fragile Promise Of Open-File Discovery, Ben Grunwald

Faculty Scholarship

Under traditional rules of criminal discovery, defendants are entitled to little prosecutorial evidence and are thus forced to negotiate plea agreements and prepare for trial in the dark. In an effort to expand defendants’ discovery rights, a number of states have recently enacted “open-file” statutes, which require the government to share the fruits of its investigation with the defense. Legal scholars have widely supported these reforms, claiming that they level the playing field and promote judicial efficiency by decreasing trials and speeding up guilty pleas. But these predictions are based largely on intuition and anecdotal data without extended theoretical analysis …

Brief Of Professors At Law And Business Schools As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Respondents, James D. Cox, J. Robert Brown Jr., Lyman Johnson, Lawrence W. Treece, Joan Macleod Heminway

Faculty Scholarship

This Amicus Brief was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of nearly 50 law and business faculty in the United States and Canada who have a common interest in ensuring a proper interpretation of the statutory securities regulation framework put in place by the U.S. Congress. Specifically, all amici agree that Item 303 of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation S-K creates a duty to disclose for purposes of Rule 10b-5(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Court’s affirmation of a duty to disclose would have little effect on existing practice. Under the current state of …

Putting The Securities Laws To The Test: The Long-Standing Approach To Federal Securities Regulation Is Not Working, Elisabeth De Fontenay

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Federal Rule Of Evidence 502: Has It Lived Up To Its Potential?, Paul W. Grimm, Lisa Yurwit Bergstrom, Matthew P. Kraeuter

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Discovery About Discovery: Does The Attorney-Client Privilege Protect All Attorney-Client Communications Relating To The Preservation Of Potentially Relevant Information?, Paul W. Grimm, Michael D. Berman, Leslie Wharton, Jenna Beck, Conor R. Crowley

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Senior Corporate Officers And The Duty Of Candor: Do The Ceo And Dfo Have A Duty To Inform?, Z. Jill Barclift

Faculty Scholarship

This article focuses on the duty to inform as a framework to assess liability of senior officers of public companies who withhold information from directors. The broadening of the definition of the duty to inform that senior officers owe directors to include an underlying affirmative duty to provide information, even when director or shareholder action is not requested, offers an opportunity for greater monitoring of corporate governance by focusing on those often most culpable. Currently, the plain language of Delaware’s delegation of authority statute protects directors who reasonably rely in good faith on the reports of corporate officers. However, officers’ …

Common-Law Disclosure Duties And The Sin Of Omission: Testing The Meta-Theories, Kimberly D. Krawiec, Kathryn Zeiler

Faculty Scholarship

Since ancient times, legal scholars have explored the vexing question of when and what a contracting party must disclose to her counterparty, even in the absence of explicit misleading statements. This fascination has culminated in a set of claims regarding which factors drive courts to impose disclosure duties on informed parties. Most of these claims are based on analysis of a small number of non-randomly selected cases and have not been tested systematically. This article represents the first attempt to systematically test a number of these claims using data coded from 466 case decisions spanning over a wide array of …