Law Commons^™

The Feca’S Foreign Nationals Prohibition In United States V. Singh: Criminalizing Campaign Contributions Without The Requisite Mens Rea And The Ramifications For Foreign Corporations With Domestic Subsidiaries, Abigail Gampher

American University Business Law Review

No abstract provided.

Towards Shareholder Vote On Equity Issuances, Niccolò Calvi

American University Business Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Inchoate Meaning Of “Covered Security” Under The Securities Act Of 1933 – A Look At A Bank “In Organization”, Michael D. Waters

American University Business Law Review

No abstract provided.

Unlocking Progressive Corporate Governance: The Black And Brown Hdfc Key, Gregory Louis

American University Business Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dudenhoeffer: Why Concealment Of Fraud Violates The Fiduciary Duty-Of-Prudence, Kolton G. Whitmire

American University Business Law Review

I. INTRODUCTION

In 1974, Congress sought to encourage a form of a retirement fund known as an employee stock ownership plan (“ESOP”). The statutory mandates of these plans are outlined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). ESOPs are invested in stock of the company in which the employee works. In this way, ESOP planners’ (“plan fiduciaries”) obligations are necessarily unique. Whereas most fiduciaries are required to prudently diversify investments to protect their beneficiaries, ESOP planners are not similarly mandated. Further, Congress allows ESOP planners to concurrently be officers of the corporation in which the stock was invested. This …