Securities Law Commons^™

Can The Liquidity Rule Keep Mutual Funds Afloat? Contextualizing The Collapse Of Third Avenue Management Focused Credit Fund, Nicolas Valderrama

Catholic University Law Review

In 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted Rule 22e-4 (the “Liquidity Rule”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, and related reporting and disclosure requirements. One industry analyst described the Liquidity Rule’s objective as making sure that mutual funds implement “effective liquidity risk management programs,” especially in light of mutual funds’ prevalence in the economy and in American households. Yet, as one Reuters analyst suggested, the SEC also seemed to have adopted these liquidity regulations, to avoid a “repeat of the kind of problems that surfaced with the collapse of the [mutual fund] Third Avenue Focused Credit …

Equity Market Structure Regulation: Time To Start Over, Paul G. Mahoney

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

Over the past half-century, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)’s regulations have become key determinants of the way in which stocks trade and the fees that exchanges charge for their services. The current equity market structure rules are contained primarily in the SEC’s Regulation NMS. The theory behind Regulation NMS is that a system of dispersed markets operating pursuant to SEC-mandated information and order routing links will provide the benefits of consolidation and competition simultaneously.

This article argues that Regulation NMS has failed in that quest. It has produced fragmented markets and created questionable incentives for market participants, possibly …

State Securities Enforcement, Andrew K. Jennings

Faculty Articles

Each year, state securities regulators bring over twice the enforcement actions brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission, yet their work is largely missing from the literature. This Article provides an institutional account of state securities enforcement and identifies two key advantages—detection granularity and institutional decentralization—that states enjoy over their federal counterparts in policing localized frauds involving individual, often small-dollar, victims. Although states share enforcement jurisdiction with the SEC and DOJ, their enforcement activity reflects their institutional advantages and constraints and thus largely does not overlap with that of federal authorities. Instead, states serve as the nation’s residual securities enforcers, …

Power And Statistical Significance In Securities Fraud Litigation, Jill E. Fisch, Jonah B. Gelbach

All Faculty Scholarship

Event studies, a half-century-old approach to measuring the effect of events on stock prices, are now ubiquitous in securities fraud litigation. In determining whether the event study demonstrates a price effect, expert witnesses typically base their conclusion on whether the results are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, a threshold that is drawn from the academic literature. As a positive matter, this represents a disconnect with legal standards of proof. As a normative matter, it may reduce enforcement of fraud claims because litigation event studies typically involve quite low statistical power even for large-scale frauds.

This paper, written for …

A Lesson In Moral Hazard: Why We Should Thank Bernie Madoff, Walter E. Block, Corey Jones

Touro Law Review

Bernie Madoff is akin to the canary that miners bring to their jobs for safety. He resembles the Distant Early Warning System that was installed to protect the U.S. from attack. He has not been appreciated as such. It is time, it is past time, that he be "credited" with this important role he has played.