Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Proxy Access And Optimal Standardization In Corporate Governance: An Empirical Analysis, Reilly S. Steel
Proxy Access And Optimal Standardization In Corporate Governance: An Empirical Analysis, Reilly S. Steel
Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law
According to the conventional wisdom, “one size does not fit all” in corporate governance. Firms are heterogeneous with respect to their governance needs, implying that the optimal corporate governance structure must also vary from firm to firm. This one-size-does-not-fit-all axiom has featured prominently in arguments against numerous corporate law regulatory initiatives, including the SEC’s failed Rule 14a-11—an attempt to impose mandatory, uniform “proxy access” on all public companies—which the D.C. Circuit struck down for inadequate cost–benefit analysis.
This Article presents an alternative theory as to the role of standardization in corporate governance—in which investors prefer standardized terms—and empirical …
Regulating A Revolution: From Regulatory Sandboxes To Smart Regulation, Dirk A. Zetzsche, Ross P. Buckley, Janos N. Barberis, Douglas W. Arner
Regulating A Revolution: From Regulatory Sandboxes To Smart Regulation, Dirk A. Zetzsche, Ross P. Buckley, Janos N. Barberis, Douglas W. Arner
Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law
Prior to the global financial crisis, financial innovation was viewed very positively, resulting in a laissez-faire, deregulatory approach to financial regulation. Since the crisis the regulatory pendulum has swung to the other extreme. Post-crisis regulation, plus rapid technological change, have spurred the development of financial technology (FinTech). FinTech firms and data-driven financial service providers profoundly challenge the current regulatory paradigm. Financial regulators increasingly seek to balance the traditional regulatory objectives of financial stability and consumer protection with promoting growth and innovation. The resulting regulatory innovations include RegTech, regulatory sandboxes, and special charters. This Article analyzes possible new regulatory approaches, ranging …
The Dtsa’S Federalism Problem: Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Trade Secrets, Conor Tucker
The Dtsa’S Federalism Problem: Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Trade Secrets, Conor Tucker
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”) greatly expanded federal protection of trade secrets. But how many trade secrets were “federalized”? The short answer is: many, but not all. At the heart of the DTSA lies a mammoth jurisdictional problem: Congress only federalized certain trade secrets. Unlike copyrights and patents, Congress has no independent constitutional basis to regulate trade secrets. Instead, like trademarks, trade secrets are regulated under the commerce clause and must satisfy a jurisdictional element, which requires a nexus between interstate commerce and trade secrets. But unlike trademarks, Congress chose not to legislate to the fullest extent …