Securities Law Commons^™

Clean Hands, Dirty Money, And The Codification Of Sec Disgorgement, Stephanie Palma

Fordham Law Review

Disgorgement is the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) most powerful enforcement tool and among its most controversial. For decades, federal courts treated disgorgement in securities enforcement actions as an equitable remedy, a view that the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in Liu v. SEC. Months after Liu, Congress passed the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, which codified disgorgement in SEC enforcement actions. The codification of disgorgement sparked a circuit split between the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Second Circuits over whether Congress created a new statutory form of …

How To Evaluate Non-Majority Control: What History And Statutes Tell Us—Part Ii: The Definitional Consensus, J. Travis Laster

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

This Article and a companion piece explore the claim that the functional school was novel and anomalous. The companion article examines the approaches that courts have historically taken when evaluating non-majority control (the “Historical Article”). The Historical Article demonstrates that functionalism has been the dominant approach since at least 1912, while the formal school is a recent innovation. Its tenets emerged in 2006 and coalesced in a recognizable framework around 2014. The Historical Article identifies the core claims of the two schools. 

This Article examines statutory definitions of control. It focuses on statutory regimes that use the concept of control …

Insider Trading In Crypto Assets—Back To First Principles?, Katja Langenbucher

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

This Essay examines whether the traditional rationales for prohibiting insider trading, which were developed for securities markets that facilitate capital formation, translate meaningfully to the emerging regulatory landscape for crypto assets. It contrasts the U.S. duty-based regime, grounded in fraud and fiduciary or confidential relationships under Rule 10b-5, with the EU’s information-based approach under the Market Abuse Regulation, which links trading prohibitions to mandatory disclosure of inside information. The former has proven underinclusive—prompting prosecutors to rely on wire fraud in recent crypto cases such as Wahi and Chastain while the latter tends toward overinclusivity. 

Turning to the newly emerging regimes …

Red, White-, And Blue-Collar Crime: Federal Sentencing Practices Among White-Collar And Blue-Collar Offenders, Henna Judge

Fordham Law Review

Under the current federal sentencing regime, district courts exercise immense amounts of discretion when sentencing. Though strict adherence to the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) was once mandatory, courts must now use these Guidelines as an advisory starting point and make a series of fact-specific determinations when sentencing a defendant. Though judicial discretion in this realm aids in preventing undue reliance on Guidelines-range recommendations that can lack nuance, it also invites bias.

In recent years, scholars and courts alike have called attention to a potential disparity in the way blue-collar and white-collar offenders are sentenced. This Note examines relevant …

Federal Courts, Class Actions, And The Jurisdictional Void, Courtney T. Welch

Fordham Law Review

To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of Article III. Among other things, Article III requires a plaintiff to have and maintain personal stake throughout the lifespan of the litigation. Though a simple premise, this constitutional requirement has a complicated history. This is especially true as applied to class action lawsuits, where plaintiffs bring claims both on behalf of themselves and other harmed individuals.

The U.S. Supreme Court has applied flexible rules to some—but not all—of Article III’s requirements in class actions. The breadth of this flexibility, though, is uncertain. Accordingly, so too …

Litigating Corporate Risk, Henry B. Blaikie

Fordham Law Review

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires companies to disclose risk factors in Item 105 of Regulation S-K, which calls for “a discussion of the material factors that make an investment speculative or risky.” Whether companies incur liability for omitting or mischaracterizing risk factors in their disclosures is the subject of a three-way split between eight federal courts of appeals. The majority approach among the circuits—consisting of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Tenth, and District of Columbia Circuits—imposes liability when companies omit or mischaracterize a risk factor that, at the time of disclosure, is …

Beyond Jarkesy: Rethinking The Role Of Administrative Law Judges In Sec Administrative Proceedings, Mark T. Uyeda, Jaime Marinaro

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

No abstract provided.

Alternatives To Delaware? Evaluating Corporate Law In Nevada, Texas, And Wyoming, Joseph Landau, Bailey Swartz, Anthony Rickey, Robert Ragazzo, Benjamin Edwards, George A. Mocsary

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

No abstract provided.

Algorithms In Finance: Balancing First Amendment Protections And Regulation, Yusraa Tadj

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

As algorithms become a function of decision-making in the financial sector, policymakers, the judiciary, and academics grapple with regulatory questions. With the increased reliance on algorithms in finance, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed a rule to mitigate potential conflicts of interest that can arise out of financial firms using algorithms. Algorithm users, including financial firms, are finding novel ways to protect algorithm use, such as by offering them First Amendment protections.

This Note considers to what extent algorithms can be considered protected speech amidst the complexity of algorithms and relationship within the financial sector. The Note argues that …

In Re Firstenergy Corp. Securities Litigation: Where Macquarie Meets Affiliated Ute, Elizabeth Cosenza, Amanda M. Payne

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

The central question this Article seeks to address is whether there is any world in which the Affiliated Ute presumption can still apply to cases under Rule 10b-5(b) after the Supreme Court’s decision in Macquarie? Put differently, if only half-truths and affirmative misrepresentations remain actionable under Rule 10b-5(b), is the Basic presumption the only pathway left for securities plaintiffs? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit will likely be the first court to address this issue in In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation. The case will test the availability of the Affiliated Ute presumption post-Macquarie in cases based …

Cryptocurrencies, Nfts, And The Expanding Definition Of "Investment Contract": Has The Sec Already Torpedoed The Howey Test?, David B. Guenther

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

The U.S. Supreme Court in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. in 1946 famously defined the term “investment contract”—the catch-all term in the definition of “security” in the Securities Act of 1933—to mean (1) an investment of money, (2) in a common enterprise, (3) with an expectation of profits solely from the efforts of others. While the Howey test has endured as the standard definition of an investment contract, the Howey Court did not define the term “common enterprise,” and for more than fifty years, Howey’s common enterprise prong has eroded. Since 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission has further eroded …

How To Evaluate Non-Majority Control: What History And Statutes Tell Us, J. Travis Laster

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Under American law, a person who controls a corporation is a fiduciary. Since the nineteenth century, American law has treated a person who wields a majority of the voting power as having control. For almost as long, American law has recognized that holding a majority of the voting power is sufficient but not necessary for control. During the past two decades in Delaware, two schools of thought co-existed regarding non-majority control. One school took a formal approach that (i) shifted from examining control over the business affairs of the enterprise to control over the board, (ii) discounted sources of influence …

Scienter Potentia Est: The Case For The Presumption Of Use Standard In Insider Trading, Audrey Nelson

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Is it possible to accidentally insider trade? The Supreme Court has held that scienter is a necessary element of all § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 actions, but the federal appeals courts are split on how the scienter requirement applies to insider trading cases. In a non-insider- trading § 10(b) case, the Supreme Court stated that § 10(b) scienter requires intentional misconduct. Although the Supreme Court has not heard a case specifically about the scienter element in the context of insider trading, those who support a use requirement claim that the § 10(b) scienter element requires the plaintiff to show that …

Amending Regulation D'S Accredited-Investor Definition To Allow Natural Persons To Opt Out Of Unwanted Regulatory Protections, John L. Orcutt

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

No abstract provided.

The Fortunate Demise Of Sec Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14l, Raffaele Felicetti

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

In 2021, the SEC published its now rescinded Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14L (“the 2021 Bulletin”), revising its interpretations of the “ordinary business” and “economic relevance” exclusions under Rule 14a-8. This Article contends that the post-Bulletin landscape has proven undesirable. It empirically shows that environmental and social (“E & S”) shareholder proposals—including anti-E&S proposals—surged in response. Between 2022 and 2024 alone, E & S proposals accounted for 40% of all such filings in Russell 3000 companies over the entire 2014-2024 period, generating an estimated $23.3 million in additional processing costs for companies during that three-year window. Despite their volume, these …

A Major Question For The Sec: Analyzing Constitutional Limits On Regulatory Authority, Matthew Diller, Meredith Berger, Samuel W. Buell, John M. Golden, Suzanne Ashley, Coy Garrison, Aaron Saiger, Suman Naishadham, Mary Jo White

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

No abstract provided.

Another Major Question: The Department Of Labor Should Retire The Tiebreaker Rule And Reemploy Pecuniary Language In Erisa, Brandon Chesner

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) soon turns 50. Instead of celebrating with cake, retirees and future retirees alike get to witness a new chapter in the debate over the consideration of Environmental, Social, or Governance (“ESG”) factors in investing with plan assets. As employees cross the bridge into retirement, they look to their 401(k)s and pension plans for peace of mind, for it is ERISA that has been working silently in the background establishing minimum standards, practices, and fiduciary duties to protect participants. In recent years, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has passed three regulations—two …

Speech Without Speakers: Eliminating Artificial Barriers To Pleading Corporate Scienter In Securities Fraud Claims, Jennifer Ligansky

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

To successfully plead securities fraud claims under Rule 10b–5, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) requires that plaintiff-investors raise a “strong inference” that the defendant acted with scienter when issuing a false statement. But pleading scienter presents a challenging issue when the defendant is not a person, but an entity. When the defendant is a corporation, U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have adopted different approaches for determining whether the plaintiff has pleaded a strong inference of scienter. Some circuits hold that plaintiffs can raise a strong inference of corporate scienter only if the complaint identifies a speaker who knew …

Forum Selection Provisions And The Preclusion Of Derivative Claims Under Section 14(A) Of The Securities Exchange Act: Should Federal Courts Intervene?, Noah P. Mathews

Fordham Law Review

This Note examines whether a forum selection provision in a corporation’s bylaws that requires shareholders to bring derivative claims in the Delaware Court of Chancery is enforceable when invoked by directors to dismiss derivative claims under the Securities Exchange Act (the “Exchange Act”)—claims over which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. In Seafarers Pension Plan ex rel. Boeing Co. v. Bradway, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that enforcing this type of bylaw would violate the act’s antiwaiver provision, which voids any stipulation that allows a person to waive compliance with the act. In Lee ex …

Exhuming Nondelegation . . . Intelligibly, Zachary R.S. Zajdel

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Whether by avalanche or a thousand cuts, the intelligible principle test may be awaiting its untimely demise at the behest of a reinvigorated nondelegation movement. Perhaps looking to speed up the decomposition, the Fifth Circuit in Jarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission struck down the SEC’s discretion to pursue enforcement actions with its own Administrative Law Judges or in federal court as unconstitutionally delegated legislative power. This Note posits that Jarkesy was rightly decided but rife with uncompelling reasoning. Establishing this requires a detour into the meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the significance of the separation of powers, …

Gamestopped: How Robinhood’S Gamestop Trading Halt Reveals The Complexities Of Retail Investor Protection, Neal F. Newman

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Should brokers have the unfettered right to restrict investor trading? GameStop, a brick-and-mortar video game retailer, had been experiencing declining revenues since 2016. However, GameStop saw its share price climb almost 1000 percent in the span of a one- week period from January 21, 2021 to January 27, 2021 due to retail investors buying significant amounts of GameStop shares during that period. Melvin Capital, a hedge fund, ended up losing billions as they were betting that GameStop shares would lose value instead of increase—a practice referred to as short selling. On January 28, 2021, brokers inexplicably halted trading on GameStop …

Blacking Out Congressional Insider Trading: Overlaying A Corporate Mechanism Upon Members Of Congress And Their Staff To Curtail Illegal Profiting, Nicholas Gervasi

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Congressional insider trading involves members of Congress or their staff trading on material, nonpublic information attained while executing their official responsibilities. This type of private profit-making, while in a government role, casts doubt on the efficacy and impartiality of lawmakers to regulate companies they hold shares of. Egregious acts of illegal profiting from insider trading based on information entrusted to the government escape prosecution and liability due to fundamental gaps in the common law and the Congress specific statutes lack enforcement. Recent calls on Congress by the public and multiple bipartisan proposed bills in both chambers have begun to address …

The Solution To Shadow Trading Is Not Found In Current Insider Trading Law: A Proposed Amendment To Rule 10b5-2, Jamel Gross-Cassel

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Shadow trading is a lucrative way to exploit a loophole in insider trading law. Insiders abuse this loophole to make six-figure profits and escape liability when done at the right companies. Those who shadow trade use material, nonpublic information to trade not in the securities of their own company, which would be illegal, but in the securities of a closely related company where the information is just as impactful. Efforts to close this loophole rely on the individual insider trading policies of the involved companies. These policies vary in language, making liability for shadow trading dependent on specific language or …

Governing Fintech 4.0: Bigtech, Platform Finance, And Sustainable Development, Douglas Arner, Ross Buckley, Kuzi Charamba, Artem Sergeev, Dirk Zetzsche

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Over the past 150 years, finance has evolved into one of the world’s most globalized, digitized, and regulated industries. Digitalization has transformed finance, but also enabled new entrants over the past decade in the form of technology companies, especially FinTechs and BigTechs. As a highly digitalized industry, incumbents and new entrants alike are increasingly pursuing similar approaches and models, focusing on the economies of scope and scale typical of finance and the network effects typical of data. Predictably, this has resulted in the emergence of large digital finance platforms. We argue that the combination of digitalization, new entrants (especially BigTechs), …

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 …

Goodbye Buybacks? Why Recent Stock Buyback Reform Proposals Go Beyond What Is Necessary, Joshua Zelen

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

This note provides an overview of the intensifying debate around the impact that stock buybacks have on economic inequality and the proposals designed to reform the practice. With the advent of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) 1982 promulgation of Rule 10b-18, corporations began allocating vast portions of their profits to stock buybacks. In recent years, this practice has become increasingly more common and has surpassed previous historical benchmarks.

Critics of stock buybacks primarily view the practice as a misuse of excess corporate funds that could instead be allocated to improve employee working conditions, benefits, and future outcomes. Opponent’s concerns …

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.

Murky Materiality & Scattered Standards: In Favor Of A More Uniform System Of Sst Disclosure Requirements, Megan Ganley

Fordham Law Review

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires corporations to disclose their business in or with state sponsors of terrorism (SSTs). The SEC solicits these disclosures with varying standards arising under several different mechanisms. These mechanisms include the requirements of the materiality standard, the provisions of Regulation S-K, targeted inquiry in individually issued comment letters, and affirmative requirements mandated under specific legislation. Each of these mechanisms requires disclosure of slightly different information regarding SSTs with varying degrees of exactitude. This Note examines the SEC’s current SST disclosure framework, considering the benefits, as well as the criticisms, of these disclosure mandates. This …

Bending The Investment Advisers Act's Regulatory Arc, Joseph A. Franco

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

The Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“IAA”) and its regulatory purview have changed dramatically over the life of the statute. The statute began as a simple registration scheme with barebones conduct integrity prohibitions for wealth managers and purveyors of investment newsletters. Although the statute’s original minimalist cast was deficient, the IAA’s regulatory scope has undergone a fundamental transformation, both in terms of the expanding class of advisers covered by the statute’s substantive provisions and the statute’s expansive structural integrity requirements. Over a span of decades, the IAA’s focus has been reoriented so that it is directed at least as much, …

The Insider Trading Prohibition Act: A Small Step Towards A Codified Insider Trading Law, Kayla Quigley

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Many have called for reform to insider trading law, as the current judge-made doctrine is ambiguous, complicated, and ultimately permissive of many instances of trading on nonpublic information. Indeed, Congress has attempted several times to pass a uniform insider trading statute. Most recently, in December 2019, the House of Representatives passed the Insider Trading Prohibition Act (“ITPA”). The legislation codifies many current principles of insider trading jurisprudence while also expanding potential insider trading liability. Moreover, it attempts to fix gaps in the law that various cases, such as United States v. Newman, have declined to address.

Among other flaws, …