Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Administrative proceedings; Dodd-Frank; Securities Regulation; Chamber of Commerce; Fair enforcement; Admissibility of evidence; Hearsay; Discovery; Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rules of Practice; Administrative guidelines; History of the SEC; Securities Exchange Acts of 1933 and 1934; Insider Trading Sanctions Act of 1984 (ITSA); Securities Fraud Enforcement Act of 1988 (ITSFEA); Securities Enforcement Remedies and Penny Stock Reform Act of 1990; Sarbanes-Oxley; Administrative Law Judges (ALJs); Statutory interpretation; Chevron deference; Forum selection; Administrative rulemaking; Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); CFR Rule 360; CFR Rule 233; CFR Rule 320; Pre-hearing length; Depositions (1)
- Adversarial proceeding (1)
- Battle of the experts (1)
- Civil litigation (1)
- Conflict of interest (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
The Choice Is (Not) Yours: Why The Sec Must Further Amend Its Rules Of Practice To Increase Fairness In Administrative Proceedings, Madeline Ilibassi
The Choice Is (Not) Yours: Why The Sec Must Further Amend Its Rules Of Practice To Increase Fairness In Administrative Proceedings, Madeline Ilibassi
Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) plays an extremely important role within the securities industry—it oversees the financial markets, protects consumers, and maintains market efficiency. One of the most important (and recently one of most criticized) responsibilities of the SEC is its duty to enforce the securities laws and punish violators. During the past two decades, and especially after the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010, the SEC’s Division of Enforcement has grown substantially and has utilized administrative enforcement proceedings at an increasing rate. However; this utilization has been occurring without any substantial …
New Rules Of War In The Battle Of The Experts: Amending The Expert Witness Disqualification Test For Conflicts Of Interest, Nina A. Vershuta
New Rules Of War In The Battle Of The Experts: Amending The Expert Witness Disqualification Test For Conflicts Of Interest, Nina A. Vershuta
Brooklyn Law Review
In civil litigation, the big business of retaining experts has raised concerns about the integrity of the adversarial process and undermined the role that expert testimony plays at trial. Due to a rising demand for expert testimony, it is common for the same expert to testify for opposing clients. When a client hires an expert who has been previously retained by that client’s adversary, a conflict of interest arises. Such experts may share confidential information with their new client to the detriment of the former client—triggering the expert disqualification test for conflicts of interest. Most state and federal courts do …