Securities Law Commons^™

Insider Trading Law And The Ambiguous Quest For Edge, A. C. Pritchard

Michigan Law Review

A review of Sheelah Kolhatkar, Black Edge.

Admit Or Deny: A Call For Reform Of The Sec's "Neither-Admit-Nor-Deny" Policy, Priyah Kaul

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

For four decades, the SEC’s often-invoked policy of settling cases without requiring admissions of wrongdoing, referred to as the “neither-admit-nor-deny” policy, went unchallenged by the courts, the legislature, and the public. Then in 2011, a harshly critical opinion from Judge Jed Rakoff in SEC v. Citigroup incited demands for reform of this policy. In response to Judge Rakoff’s opinion, the SEC announced a modified approach to settlements. Under the modified approach, the Commission may require an admission of wrongdoing if a defendant’s misconduct was egregious or if the public markets would benefit from an admission. Many supporters of the neither-admit-nor-deny …

Statutes With Multiple Personality Disorders: The Value Of Ambiguity In Statutory Design And Interpretation, Joseph A. Grundfest, Adam C. Pritchard

Articles

Ambiguity serves a legislative purpose. When legislators perceive a need to compromise they can, among other strategies, "obscur[e] the particular meaning of a statute, allowing different legislators to read the obscured provisions the way they wish." Legislative ambiguity reaches its peak when a statute is so elegantly crafted that it credibly supports multiple inconsistent interpretations by legislators and judges. Legislators with opposing views can then claim that they have prevailed in the legislative arena, and, as long as courts continue to issue conflicting interpretations, these competing claims of legislative victory remain credible. Formal legal doctrine, in contrast, frames legislative ambiguity …

The Plight Of Small Issuers Under The Securities Act Of 1933: Practical Foreclosure From The Capital Market, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The thesis of this Article is simple: the Securities Act of 1933 does not work very well for small issuers, a premise which the Securities and Exchange Commission appeared to tacitly recognize in a series of announcements released early this year. Because of a combination of exorbitant costs, unmanageable levels of ambiguity, unworkable resale provisions and contamination caused by prior illegal sales of stock, a small issuer often is unable to comply with the 1933 Act. As a result it may be difficult or even impossible for a small issuer to raise capital by selling stock.

There are obvious pernicious …

Corporations-Membership Corporations-Voting Rights Under California Law, Howard Vanantwerp

Michigan Law Review

The original owner of a subdivision recorded a declaration of restrictions which provided that "the majority of the property owners within the subdivision may form . . . a non-profit cooperative corporation without capital stock, but with one share thereof appurtenant to each of the lots in such subdivision,'' to approve plans for building on these lots. Defendants acquired 133 lots and commenced construction of homes in spite of the disapproval of their plans by the association organized under the authority of the declaration. The two defendants claimed to have acquired majority control of the association, claiming 133 votes as …