Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Time For Final Action On 18 U.S.C. § 3292, Abraham Abramovsky, Jonathan I. Edelstein
Time For Final Action On 18 U.S.C. § 3292, Abraham Abramovsky, Jonathan I. Edelstein
Michigan Journal of International Law
18 U.S.C. § 3292 was enacted in order to meet a compelling prosecutorial need-the increasing necessity of obtaining evidence from abroad via procedures which are frequently time-consuming. However, the statute contains numerous ambiguities, as well as built-in disadvantages both to prosecutors and defendants, which diminish its value as a prosecutorial evidence-gathering device while increasing the possibility that defendants' rights and expectations will be violated. However, it is possible to interpret the statute in a manner which is consistent with its terms and purpose and which concomitantly preserves the rights of the Government and of grand jury targets.
The New Rules On Cross-Border Tender And Exchange Offers, Business Combinations And Rights Offerings: Competition Or Harmonization?, Julian T. Perlmutter
The New Rules On Cross-Border Tender And Exchange Offers, Business Combinations And Rights Offerings: Competition Or Harmonization?, Julian T. Perlmutter
Michigan Journal of International Law
This note introduces the Cross-Border Rules in the context of the rapidly changing securities markets and highly competitive regulatory systems noted above. It addresses the elements and impact of internationalization on cross-border tender offers and the modern U.S. regulatory response. The SEC has avoided any public moves to harmonize the U.S. system with those of other major capital markets and has instead made incremental changes aimed at maintaining the system's perceived strengths. The Cross-Border Rules represent a somewhat ungainly attempt to placate U.S. investors by bending the Williams Act tender offer rules using exemptions for certain transactions.