Law Commons^™

The Cryptic Nature Of Crypto Digital Assets Regulations: The Ripple Lawsuit And Why The Industry Needs Regulatory Clarity, Jacqueline Hennelly

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

The tension and associated time lag between technology and regulation has been well documented. Paradigmatic of this phenomenon is the global evolution of blockchain technology and digital assets. Digital assets in the blockchain allow users to transact directly without financial intermediaries. However, the regulatory guidelines for the assets, their issuance, and the subsequent transactions are unclear. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed an action to apply its existing regulations and the judicial interpretations to Ripple’s issuance of XRP, its token, and Ripple’s control over subsequent user transactions of XRP. This Note uses SEC v. Ripple as a case …

Here To Stay: Wrestling With The Future Of The Quickly Maturing Spac Market, Matthew Diller, Rick Fleming, Stephen Fraidin, Aj Harris, Gregory F. Laufer, Mark Lebovitch, Gregg A. Noel, Hester M. Peirce, Usha R. Rodrigues, Mike Stegemoller, Verity Winship, Douglas Ellenoff

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

No abstract provided.

Halliburton Ii At Four: Has It Changed The Outcome Of Class Certification Decisions?, Noah Weingarten

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258 (2014) (Halliburton II) appeared to give corporate defendants a new tool to defeat class certification in the context of securities fraud class action litigation: rebutting the requisite presumption of reliance by showing a lack of "price impact"-a term that Halliburton II used to describe whether the price of an allegedly affected company's stock went up or down. However, based on an empirical study of pre- versus post-Halliburton II class certification decisions, it appears that the outcomes of class certification decisions have become even …

Global Investor Protection: Securities Law Enforcement Around The World, Matthew Diller, Martin Gelter, Eugenio J. Cardenas, Merritt B. Fox, Geoffrey Jarvis, Pierre-Henri Conac, Todd Cosenza, Jill Fisch, Yuliya Guseva, Elad Roisman, Sean Griffith

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

No abstract provided.

Disruptive Technology And Securities Regulation, Chris Brummer

Fordham Law Review

Nowhere has disruptive technology had a more profound impact than in financial services—and yet nowhere do academics and policymakers lack a coherent theory of the phenomenon more, much less a coherent set of regulatory prescriptions. Part of the challenge lies in the varied channels through which innovation upends market practices. Problems also lurk in the popular assumption that securities regulation operates against the backdrop of stable market gatekeepers like exchanges, broker-dealers, and clearing systems—a fact scenario increasingly out of sync in twenty-first-century capital markets.

This Article explains how technological innovation “disrupts” not only capital markets but also the exercise of …

The Sum Of Its Parts: The Lawyer-Client Relationship In Initial Public Offerings, Jeremy R. Mcclane

Fordham Law Review

This Article examines the impact of the quality of a lawyer's working relationship with his or her client on one of the most important types of capital markets deal in a company's existence: its initial public offering (IPO). Drawing on data from interviews with equity capital markets lawyers at major law firms, and analyzing data from IPOs in the United States registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission between June 1996 and December 2010, this study finds a strong association between several measures of IPO performance and the familiarity between the lead underwriter and its counsel, as measured by the …

Burning Down The House Or Simply Rolling The Dice: A Comment On Section 621 Of The Dodd-Frank Act And Recommendation For Its Implementation, Joshua R. Rosenthal

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Section 621 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act modifies the Securities Act of 1933 to prohibit the underwriter, placement agent, initial purchaser, or sponsor, or any affiliate or subsidiary of any such entity of an asset-backed financial product from betting against that very product for one year after the product’s initial sale. The rule prohibits anyone who structures or sells an asset-backed security or a product composed of asset-backed securities from going short, in the specified timeframe, on what they have sold, and labels such transactions as presenting material conflicts of interest. This Comment discusses traces …

The End Of The Internal Compliance World As We Know It, Or An Enhancement Of The Effectiveness Of Securities Law Enforcement? Bounty Hunting Under The Dodd-Frank Act's Whistleblower Provision, Justin Blount, Spencer Markel

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

In the wake of Bernard Madoff’s $65 billion Ponzi scheme and the recent economic crisis stemming largely from loosely regulated subprime lending and mortgage-backed securities, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act on July 21, 2010, signaling loudly and clearly that change is coming to Wall Street. But Wall Street is not the only one receiving a message. Buried deep within the 2,319 pages of the Dodd-Frank Act, companies can find Section 922, the whistleblower provision, which provides a bounty for whistleblowers who report securities violations to the Securities and Exchange Commission.These bounty provisions and …

323 Non-Managing Underwriters’ Role In Securities Offerings: Just Eye Candy?, Elena Marty-Nelson

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

While there is considerable scholarship on the due diligence defense of lead underwriters in defective corporate securities offerings, there is surprisingly little analysis of the due diligence defense of non-managing underwriters. This article challenges the common perception that lead and non-managing underwriters necessarily “sink or swim” together for purposes of due diligence. An analysis of the statutory structure of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 reveals that non-managing underwriters are not inextricably tethered to the lead. Rather, non-managing underwriters who actively question the lead’s due diligence investigation should be able to meet their own affirmative defense even when …

The Tenth Annual Albert A. Destefano Lecture On Corporate, Securities & Financial Law. Corporate Accountability: Governance And Compensation Issues, Stanley Sporkin, Todd Lang, Gary Naftalis, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, Louise Story

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY: GOVERNANCE AND COMPENSATION ISSUES

Broker-Dealer Responsibility In Reguation D Transacctions, Matthew Joonho Jeon

Fordham Urban Law Journal

The Note examines the responsibilities that a broker-dealer has under section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, in Regulation D transactions. The author concludes that because the private placement market for securities generally consists of those persons who are sophisticated and knowledgeable in financial matters, these investors do not need the full protection of the Securities Act's registration requirements. Consequently, broker-dealers involved in Regulation D transactions should not be required to exercise "due diligence."

Closing A Loophole: Insider Trading In Standardized Options, Steve Thel

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This article is a Commentary on a previous Note published in the Fordham Urban Law Journal (Note, Insiders, Options and the Fiduciary Principle: A Rule 10b-5 Loophole, 16 Fordham Urb. L.J. 295 (1988)). The Note argued that the Supreme Court has expressly endorsed only one theory of insider trading liability, in Chiarella v. United States. By the simple expedient of trading options on common stock rather than the common stock itself, an insider can escape Rule 10b-5 liability under Chiarella.