Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Social and Behavioral Sciences

Selected Works

Securities fraud

Publication Year
Publication
File Type

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Paper Dragon Thieves, J.S. Nelson Dec 2016

Paper Dragon Thieves, J.S. Nelson

J.S. Nelson

Developments in the law are making the corporate form more opaque and allowing the agents who animate it to escape individual accountability for their actions. The law now provides protection for agents to engage in widespread frauds that inflict massive harm on the public. This article challenges the academic orthodoxy that shareholder and director liability are enough to control agent behavior by developing a paper dragon analogy to focus on the importance of agents in corporate animation. Lack of agent accountability encourages the patterns of fraud that caused the financial crisis in which forty-five percent of the world’s wealth disappeared, …

Go to article

The Corporate Shell Game, J.S. Nelson Dec 2015

The Corporate Shell Game, J.S. Nelson

J.S. Nelson

This Article identifies for the first time the hardening of the corporate shell. It provides compelling evidence that shell-hardening pushes and disguises the way that corporations and agents commit large-scale wrongdoing, and it traces the contributing legal streams that protect the agents who engage in this behavior. The only way to combat widespread frauds that inflict damage on the public is for the corporate shell to be-come less opaque.

Go to article

The Responsibilities Of Lawyers For Their Clients’ Misstatements And Omissions To The Securities Market In Singapore, Wai Yee Wan Jun 2014

The Responsibilities Of Lawyers For Their Clients’ Misstatements And Omissions To The Securities Market In Singapore, Wai Yee Wan

Wai Yee WAN

This article examines the extent to which lawyers advising on the disclosure documents of their clients issued to the securities markets should be responsible for their clients’ disclosure failures. It identifies the following problems with the current framework. First, there is a lack of objective due diligence standards which lawyers are expected to meet when they are advising on public disclosure documents. Second, except for takeovers, lawyers are not subject to public enforcement actions even if they have not acted with due care and diligence in ensuring that their clients comply with their disclosure obligations. Third, private enforcement actions against …

Go to article