Securities Law Commons^™

Congressional Securities Trading, Gregory Shill

Indiana Law Journal

The trading of stocks and bonds by Members of Congress presents several risks that warrant public concern. One is the potential for policy distortion: lawmakers' personal investments may influence their official acts. Another is a special case of a general problem: that of insiders exploiting access to confidential information for personal gain. In each case, the current framework which is based on common law fiduciary principles is a poor fit. Surprisingly, rules from a related context have been overlooked.

Like lawmakers, public company insiders such as CEOs frequently trade securities while in possession of confidential information. Those insiders' trades are …

Codes Of Ethics And State Fiduciary Duties: Where Is The Line?, Z. Jill Barclift

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

No abstract provided.

Private Equity Firms: Beyond Sec Registration As An Investment Adviser How To Build And Administer An Effective Compliance Program, Susan Mosher

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or the “Commission”) recently adopted new rules and rule amendments under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) that serve to implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”).1 The new rules and rule amendments under the Advisers Act relate to provisions of Title IV of the Dodd-Frank Act (the Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2010) that, among other things, require certain private fund advisers and private equity firms to register with the Commission.2 This article is intended to assist firms that …

Securities Law: Section 307 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act: Irreconcilable Conflict With The Aba's Model Rules And The Oklahoma Rules Of Professional Conduct?, Jennifer Wheeler

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sec Disciplinary Proceedings Against Attorneys Under Rule 2 ( E ), Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note reassesses SEC authority to discipline attorneys under rule 2( e ). Part I explores the history of rule 2( e) proceedings against attorneys and the troublesome policy issues raised by the SEC's new approach to rule 2(e) enforcement. Part II examines the SEC's claim that general rulemaking provisions give it authority to discipline attorneys. The Note concludes that a proper construction of statutes and case law bars rule 2( e) proceedings against attorneys.