Securities Law Commons^™

Disclosure's Limits, Usha Rodrigues, Mike Stegemoller

Scholarly Works

Special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) have exploded in popularity, luring both adventurous retail investors and sophisticated institutional investors. In a SPAC, a publicly traded shell corporation acquires a private target, thereby taking it public in a manner that circumvents the rigors of a traditional initial public offering (IPO). Proponents vaunt SPACs’ ability to simplify the process of accessing the public markets and democratize capitalism, but in their current form they pose risks to retail investors and to the market as a whole. Using a hand-collected dataset, this Article fills a gap in the literature by providing new empirical data regarding …

Embrace The Sec, Usha Rodrigues

Scholarly Works

Securities law traditionally only permits corporations that have registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and completed an initial public offering (IPO) to sell equity to the general public—often a long, expensive process. Initial coin offering (ICOs) emerged in 2013 as a fundraising tool for non-public blockchain-based companies to raise billions of dollars while circumventing the SEC and public offering process altogether. But their early success brought the attention of the SEC, and in 2017 the SEC asserted the right to regulate ICOs. Since then, U.S. ICO promoters have struggled to avoid the SEC’s assertion of jurisdiction, contorting their …

Financial Contracting With The Crowd, Usha Rodrigues

Scholarly Works

Equity crowdfunding is broken. The current model imposes too many burdens on entrepreneurs in exchange for too little money. For alternative models, this Article looks to the time-tested venture capital financial contract, and the recent experience of initial coin offerings (ICOs). ICOs made headlines over the past two years, as the means by which blockchain technology companies raised billions of dollars to launch new cryptocurrency ventures. Although their novelty as a monetary and investing device is well known, ICOs also presented significant, unappreciated insights into financial contracting.

ICOs furnished an unprecedented experiment into how bargains would look if entrepreneurs raised …

Does Shareholder Voting Matter? Evidence From The Takeover Market, Paul Mason, Usha Rodrigues, Mike Stegemoller, Steven Utke

Scholarly Works

Voting rights are a basic shareholder-protection mechanism. Outside of the core voting requirements state law imposes (election of directors and votes on fundamental changes), federal law grants shareholders additional voting rights. But these rights introduce concomitant costs into corporate governance. Each grant of a voting right thus invites the question: is the benefit achieved worth the cost the vote imposes?

The question is not merely a theoretical one. Recently the SEC, concerned about Nasdaq’s potential weakening of shareholder voting protections, has lamented that little evidence exists on the value of the shareholder vote. This Article provides that evidence. It examines …

Spacs And The Jobs Act, Usha Rodrigues

Scholarly Works

The law has long confined the average investor to trading in public securitieswhile allowing wealthy—or “accredited”—individual investors access to a panoply of private securities, including investment vehicles such as hedge funds and private equity funds. Nevertheless, pressure to let the general public into private equity has been growing. Two forces have contributed to this mounting pressure. First, public investors are eager to try their hand at investing in private enterprise. Second, private firms need capital. In the face of these forces, the sharp line that has long separated public and private firms has become increasingly blurred

Consider the story of …

Materiality And Social Change: The Case For Replacing "The Reasonable Investor" With "The Least Sophisticated Investor" In Inefficient Markets, Margaret V. Sachs

Scholarly Works

The current materiality standard for federal securities fraud is a mid-twentieth-century construct that fails to accommodate certain twenty-first century realities. This Article argues that its reach should be restricted to preserve it for the many circumstances in which it continues to function well.

The current standard measures materiality from the standpoint of "the reasonable investor," a savvy person who grasps market fundamentals. This standard has a fatal flaw: its inability to protect unsophisticated investors who are duped by implausible falsehoods in inefficient markets. This flaw can no longer be ignored given Internet and telemarketing securities fraud and its many unsophisticated, …

Civil Liability And Remedies In Ohio Securities Transactions, Keith A. Rowley

Scholarly Works

The Ohio Securities Act (“OSA”) was enacted in 1913 to “guard [ ] investors against fraudulent enterprises, to prevent sales of securities based only on schemes purely speculative in character, and to protect the public from swindling peddlers of worthless stocks in mere paper corporations.” The OSA, which is administered by the Ohio Division of Securities (“Division”) and enforced by both the Division and private litigants, regulates the sale and purchase of securities in Ohio. The OSA and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to it by the Division are designed both to encourage compliance by those who might otherwise …

They Toil Not, Neither Do They Spin: Civil Liability Under The Oregon Securities Law, Keith A. Rowley

Scholarly Works

Under Oregon law, persons who sell securities in violation of statutory registration requirements, or by means of some misrepresentation or omission of material fact, may be liable to any person or entity who buys securities from or through them. Likewise, persons who buy securities by means of some misrepresentation or omission of material fact may be liable to any person or entity who sells securities to or through them. In addition to, or in lieu of, suing the person who committed the material misrepresentation or omission, a plaintiff may sue one or more persons or entities who might be vicariously …

Freedom Of Contract: The Trojan Horse Of Rule 10b-5, Margaret V. Sachs

Scholarly Works

Before the late 1980s, traditional contract law played virtually no role in private litigation under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5. The reason was perceived incompatibility. The 1934 Act is regulation intended to supersede “the philosophy of caveat emptor,” whereas traditional contract law promotes bargaining free of regulation. In the late 1980s, however, the tide turned. Since that time, private rule 10b-5 litigation has become riddled with the vocabulary of traditional contract jurisprudence – the statute of frauds, merger clauses, attorneys' fees clauses, choice of law clauses, releases, and the formation of an agreement. …

Are Local Governments Liable Under Rule 10b-5? Textualism And Its Limits, Margaret V. Sachs

Scholarly Works

Whether state and local governments can be sued for damages is a question that cuts across subject-area boundaries. This question, which has long confounded courts in the areas of both antitrust and civil rightslaw, now has arisen in a new area: section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5. The thesis of this Article is that a local government is an inappropriate rule 10b-5 defendant, regardless of whether it is the issuer of the securities in question or an alleged participant in a scheme involving corporate securities. The only appropriate rule 10b-5 defendants are private actors.

The Relevance Of Tort Law Doctrines To Rule 10b-5: Should Careless Plaintiffs Be Denied Recovery?, Margaret V. Sachs

Scholarly Works

Private litigation under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5 is at present riddled with tort law doctrines. Familiar tort concepts such as aiding and abetting, respondeat superior, plaintiff's duty of care, in pari delicto, and contribution have been imported into the rule 10b-5 private action by a number of lower federal courts. The United States Supreme Court had not addressed the relevance of any of these doctrines until its decision this year in Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc., v. Berner. By disallowing a defense of in pari delicto on statutory enforcement grounds, Bateman plainly …