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

Securities Law Commons

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

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Securities Law

A Big Gap Between ‘Law In Books’ And ‘Law In Action’ And "A New Taxonomy Of Enforcement Strategies", Robin H. Huang, Nicholas C. Howson Jan 2017

A Big Gap Between ‘Law In Books’ And ‘Law In Action’ And "A New Taxonomy Of Enforcement Strategies", Robin H. Huang, Nicholas C. Howson

Other Publications

Any attempt to comprehensively analyse the enforcement of corporate law and securities regulation is difficult, not only because there are so many distinct national systems in play, but also because, we need to examine both formal enforcement mechanisms and the way in which such mechanisms are applied in practice. If nothing else, the expert analyses presented in the foregoing chapters of this book confirm that with respect to enforcement issues a rather large gap does exist between what Roscoe Pound memorably called ‘law in books’ and ‘law in action’.


Well-Known Seasoned Issuers In Canada, Adam C. Pritchard Jan 2006

Well-Known Seasoned Issuers In Canada, Adam C. Pritchard

Other Publications

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted a series of rules relaxing the restrictions imposed on public offerings. The largest public companies - defined as “well-known seasoned issuers” (WKSIs) - received the most extensive regulatory relief. Canada could adopt a version of WKSI status for the top tier of Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) issuers as part of a streamlined POP system.

Careful consideration must be given, however, as to the appropriate standards for WKSI status in Canada. The standards adopted in the U.S. – US$700 million in market capitalization or US$1 billion in nonconvertible debt issued over …


Should Congress Repeal Securities Class Action Reform?, Adam C. Pritchard Jan 2003

Should Congress Repeal Securities Class Action Reform?, Adam C. Pritchard

Other Publications

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 was designed to curtail class action lawsuits by the plaintiffs’ bar. In particular, the high-technology industry, accountants, and investment bankers thought that they had been unjustly victimized by class action lawsuits based on little more than declines in a company’s stock price. Prior to 1995, the plaintiffs’ bar had free rein to use the discovery process to troll for evidence to support its claims. Moreover, the high costs of litigation were a powerful weapon with which to coerce companies to settle claims. The plaintiffs’ bar and its allies in Congress have called …