Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Sec Adds A New Weapon: How Does The New Admission Requirement Change The Landscape?, Paul Radvany
The Sec Adds A New Weapon: How Does The New Admission Requirement Change The Landscape?, Paul Radvany
Faculty Scholarship
Over the past several years, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has settled the vast majority of the cases it has brought. Some people have suggested, however, that settlements by public agencies such as the SEC should be scrutinized more closely. For instance, in a series of recent opinions, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York has “question[ed] the wisdom” of the SEC’s well-established practice of permitting defendants to enter into consent judgments while neither admitting nor denying the allegations. During the past two years, the SEC has implemented new policies that have altered its …
Taking Section 10(B) Seriously: Criminal Enforcement Of Sec Rules, Steve Thel
Taking Section 10(B) Seriously: Criminal Enforcement Of Sec Rules, Steve Thel
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court has determined the scope of federal securities laws in a series of cases in which it has read section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act as either prohibiting certain misconduct or authorizing the SEC to regulate that conduct and only that conduct. Judging by the language, structure and history of the Exchange Act, the Court’s reading is wrong. Section 10(b) does not prohibit anything, and it neither grants the SEC rulemaking power nor limits the rulemaking power granted to the SEC elsewhere in the Exchange Act. Instead, section 10(b) simply triggers criminal sanctions for certain rule violations. …
Fee-Shifting Bylaw And Charter Provisions: Can They Apply In Federal Court? – The Case For Preemption, John C. Coffee Jr.
Fee-Shifting Bylaw And Charter Provisions: Can They Apply In Federal Court? – The Case For Preemption, John C. Coffee Jr.
Faculty Scholarship
In the first months after a decision of the Delaware Supreme Court upholding a fee-shifting bylaw under which the unsuccessful plaintiff shareholder was required to reimburse all defendants for their legal and other expenses in the litigation, some 24 public companies adopted a similar provision – either by means of a board-adopted bylaw or by placing such a provision in their certificate of incorporation (in the case of companies undergoing an IPO). In effect, private ordering is introducing a one-sided version of the “loser pays” rules. Indeed, as drafted, these provisions typically require a plaintiff who is not completely successful …