Securities Law Commons^™

The New Public/Private Equilibrium And The Regulation Of Public Companies, Elisabeth De Fontenay, Gabriel Rauterberg

Faculty Scholarship

This Symposium Article examines how the public/private divide works today and maps out some of the potential implications for major issues in securities law. Classic debates in securities law were often predicated on the idea that public companies are a coherent class of firms that differ markedly from private companies. For more than fifty years after the adoption of the federal securities laws, this view was justified. During that period, the vast majority of successful and growing private firms eventually accepted the regulatory obligations of being public in order to access a wider and deeper pool of capital, among other …

The Breakdown Of The Public–Private Divide In Securities Law: Causes, Consequences, And Reforms, George S. Georgiev

Faculty Articles

As a regulatory scheme, U.S. securities law has traditionally been designed around a set of lines—the “public–private divide”—which separate public companies, public capital, and public markets, from private companies, private capital, and private markets. Until the early 2000s, the lines were successful in establishing two largely coherent legal realms—a highly regulated public realm and a lightly regulated private realm. A series of bold and often-inconsistent reforms between 2002 and 2020, however, have transformed this longstanding regime into a low-friction system wherein public capital flows to both public and private companies, private capital is ever more abundant, and firms can effectively …

The Future Of Securities Law In The Supreme Court, Adam C. Pritchard, Robert B. Thompson

Articles

Since the enactment of the first federal securities statute in 1933, securities law has illustrated key shifts in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. During the New Deal, the Court’s securities law decisions shifted almost overnight from open hostility toward the newly-expanded administrative state to broad deference to agency expertise. In the 1940s, securities cases helped build the legal foundation for a broadly enabling administrative law. The 1960s saw the Warren Court creating new implied rights of action in securities law illustrative of the Court’s approach to statutes generally. The stage seemed set for the rise of “federal corporate law.” The Court …

The Corporate Contract And The Internal Affairs Doctrine, Mohsen Manesh

American University Law Review

In the landmark case Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the validity of a corporate charter provision restricting the rights of shareholders to bring federal securities law claims. Although rights arising under federal securities law lie beyond the internal affairs doctrine, which has traditionally defined the boundaries of state corporate law, the Salzberg court ruled that such rights may be regulated by the “corporate contract,” created by state corporate law and comprised of a corporation’s charter and bylaws. Embracing contractarian precepts, the Salzberg court rejected the lower Chancery Court’s concession theory of the corporate contract as inextricably bound …

The Growth Of Vancouver As An Innovation Hub: Challenges And Opportunities, Camden Hutchison, Li-Wen Lin

All Faculty Publications

This article assesses the development of Vancouver as an entrepreneurial region. Using data collected from commercial startup databases, we find that Vancouver produces more startups and receives more venture capital financing per capita than any other major Canadian city. However, we also find that Vancouver lags many U.S. cities on these same metrics. In light of our empirical findings, we explore whether differences in entrepreneurial activity between Canada and the United States are due to differences in the countries’ legal environments. We conclude that legal differences do not explain observed economic disparities, and that differences in entrepreneurial activity are due …

Regulation Of Securities Offerings In California: Is It Time For A Change After A Century Of Merit Regulation?, Neal H. Brockmeyer

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

The California securities law originated in 1913 from a populist movement that embodied a paternalistic attitude toward the protection of investors. It was characterized by the registration of offerings of securities with few exemptions and exclusions, a qualitative review of the merits of those offerings and an administrator with broad authority to implement and enforce the law. While the California securities law is still based on merit review, exclusions and exemptions have been added and expanded over the years by the California legislature and securities regulators. More recently, Congress has preempted state registration and merit review of various securities and …

Kill Cammer: Securities Litigation Without Junk Science, J. B. Heaton

William & Mary Business Law Review

Securities litigation is a hotbed of junk science concerning market efficiency. This Article explains why and suggests a way out. In its 1988 decision in Basic v. Levinson, the Supreme Court endorsed the fraud on the market presumption for securities traded in an efficient market. Faced with the task of determining market efficiency, courts throughout the nation embraced the ad hoc speculations of a first-mover district court that proclaimed, in Cammer v. Bloom, how to allege (and presumably prove) facts that would do just that. The Cammer court’s analysis did not rely on financial economics for its notions, but instead …

Insider Trading And Cryptoassets: The Waters Just Got Muddier, John P. Anderson

Journal Articles

The absence of any clear guidance on when a digital asset is a security is a problem that has ramifications far beyond this article’s limited focus on our insider trading enforcement regime. Nevertheless, I have argued that the impending application of our insider trading laws to cryptoassets helps to illustrate why it is unfair and unjust to force market participants to wait much longer for a definitive answer to the question of when a digital asset is a security.

A Tale Of Two Cities: Mark Cuban, David Einhorn, And The Ethics Of Insider Trading Reform, John P. Anderson

Journal Articles

The similarities between the insider trading stories of Mark Cuban and David Einhorn suggest that their circumstances are not uncommon, and the contrasting results also help to illustrate some significant differences between the common law fraud-based insider trading regime in the U.S. and the statutory parity-of-information regime in Europe. And, as Congress and the SEC continue to weigh the merits of reform in the U.S., the examples of Cuban and Einhorn are particularly instructive for the reasons to be developed in the remaining sections of this Article. First, as will be explained in Part II of this Article, contrasting the …

Newman/Martoma: The Insider Trading Law's Impasse And The Promise Of Congressional Action, Tai H. Park

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

The prohibition against insider trading is a judge-made law that has evolved for over fifty years, and has reached a critical impasse in two recent decisions in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals: United States v. Newman and United States v. Martoma. Judges of the Second Circuit are sharply divided over what conduct constitutes improper trading on material nonpublic information (“MNPI”), leaving the law in profound disarray. At bottom, the disagreement stems from a decades-old split within the judiciary about how to (1) ensure a fair securities marketplace, while (2) enabling institutional analysts to probe for corporate information in furtherance …

Multilateral Transparency For Security Markets Through Dlt, David C. Donald, Mahdi H. Miraz

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

For decades, changing technology and policy choices have worked to fragment securities markets, rendering them so dark that neither ownership nor real-time price of securities are generally visible to all parties multilaterally. The policies in the U.S. National Market System and the EU Market in Financial Instruments Directive— together with universal adoption of the indirect holding system— have pushed Western securities markets into a corner from which escape to full transparency has seemed either impossible or prohibitively expensive. Although the reader has a right to skepticism given the exaggerated promises surrounding blockchain in recent years, we demonstrate in this paper …

Reconciling U.S. Banking And Securities Data Preservation Rules With European Mandatory Data Erasure Under Gdpr, Ronald V. Distante

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

United States law, which requires financial institutions to retain customer data, conflicts with European Union law, which requires financial institutions to delete customer data on demand. A financial institution operating transnationally cannot comply with both U.S. and EU law. Financial institutions thus face the issue that they cannot possibly delete and retain the same data simultaneously. This Note will clarify the scope and nature of this conflict.

First, it will clarify the conflict by examining (1) the relevant laws, which are Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act, and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations, (2) …

Are Securities Laws Effective Against Climate Change? A Proposal For Targeted Climate Related Disclosure And Ghg Reduction, Nate Chumley

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

The New York Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Exxon Mobil on October 24, 2018, claiming the company committed securities fraud in order to prop up the value of the company by publicly disclosing a higher proxy cost—or projected future cost—of climate change regulation than the internal cost used. Following this lawsuit, a federal class action was filed utilizing the same legal theory on the same facts. These lawsuits should be viewed as part of the larger history of lawsuits against large fossil fuel companies for climate change-related harms. Public nuisance theory largely captured a set of lawsuits against these …

Mandatory Disclosure In Primary Markets, Andrew A. Schwartz

Utah Law Review

Mandatory disclosure—the idea that companies must be legally required to disclose certain, specified information to public investors—is the first principle of modern securities law. Despite the high costs it imposes, mandatory disclosure has been well defended by legal scholars on two theoretical grounds: ‘Agency costs’ and ‘information underproduction.’ While these two concepts are a good fit for secondary markets (where investors trade securities with one another), this Article shows that they are largely irrelevant in the context of primary markets (where companies offer securities directly to investors). The surprising result is that primary offerings—such as an IPO—may not require mandatory …

Collaborative Approaches To Blockchain Regulation: The Brooklyn Project Example, Patrick Berarducci

Cleveland State Law Review

Today, I am going to discuss, at a high level, blockchain technology—what it is, what are its unique features that could revolutionize markets and economies, and how it could impact law and regulation. That is a lot to cover—far too much in the time allotted. So I will keep things at a very high level and hopefully pique some interest in everyone to dig deeper on their own.

Undoing A Deal With The Devil: Some Challenges For Congress's Proposed Reform Of Insider Trading Plans, John P. Anderson

Journal Articles

The adoption of Rule 10b5-1 was, in a manner of speaking, a deal with the devil that the SEC and some lawmakers now appear to regret having made. The problem is that, as is often the case with such a deal, it cannot be easily undone. I identify challenges presented by the restrictions on Trading Plan use that Congress has proposed in the Corporate Insiders Act. In light of these challenges, I argue that effective Trading Plan reform cannot be accomplished by simply restricting the use of Trading Plans while leaving Rule 10b5-1(b)'s awareness test in place. If there is …

Institutional Investors As Short Sellers?, Peter Molk, Frank Partnoy

UF Law Faculty Publications

Short selling has the potential to improve the efficiency and fairness of equity markets. Yet institutional investors face both private and regulatory constraints to short selling. We document these obstacles and consider the potential benefits of removing them. We advocate that institutional investors engage in more short selling as part of overall net-long equity strategies, such as a leveraged passive equity index combined with an actively managed short position of a size comparable to the amount of leverage.

A Critical Review Of U.S. Securities Laws And The Status Of Initial Coin Offerings: Potential Solutions For Issuers, Muhammed Kus

Maurer Theses and Dissertations

Securities law in the United States has a unique approach to defining what is a security and what is not a security. It includes broadly defined terminology and describes several investment instruments that may be considered a security. Courts use one of two methods to determine whether an investment contract is a security: the Howey Test and the Risk Capital Test.

Initial Coin Offerings are one of the most recent instruments that courts and other governmental organizations need to examine in order to answer whether they meet the criteria of being a security. Depending on the result, the issuers may …

Enforcing The Bargain V. Materiality Requirement: The Future Of Disclosure-Only Settlements Post-Trulia, Hao Jiang

Pace Law Review

In In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, the Delaware Court of Chancery broke away from its tradition of routinely approving disclosure-only settlements and required disclosures to be material in order to cure the conflict of interest between plaintiff’s counsel and the plaintiff class. I argue that fairness of settlement is the only standard in approving class action settlements and fairness will not be achieved by requiring materiality. Shareholders are legally entitled to all material information, as the board’s fiduciary duty dictates. Thus, material disclosures are enforcement of a legal duty that is no consideration for the release of shareholder claims. …

The Gatekeepers Of Crowdfunding, Andrew A. Schwartz

Washington and Lee Law Review

Securities crowdfunding is premised on two core policy goals: inclusivity and efficiency. First, crowdfunding is conceived as an inclusive system where all entrepreneurs are given a chance to pitch their idea to the “crowd.” Second, crowdfunding is supposed to be an efficient way to channel funds from public investors to promising startup companies. There is a fundamental tension between these two policy goals, however. A totally inclusive system would ensure that platforms list any and every company that wants to participate. But platforms need to curate and select the companies they list in order to establish a reputation as a …

Cash For Your Conscience: Do Whistleblower Incentives Improve Enforcement Of The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?, Amy Deen Westbrook

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Legal Frankenstein’S Monster: The Complete Bar Order In Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuits, Jonathan C. Stanley

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Corporate Governance, Capital Markets, And Securities Law, Adam C. Pritchard

Book Chapters

This chapter explores the dividing line between corporate governance and securities law from both historical and institutional perspectives. Section 2 examines the origins of the dividing line between securities law and corporate governance in the United States, as well as the efforts of the SEC to push against that boundary. That history sets the stage for section 3, which broadens the inquiry by examining the institutional connections between capital markets and corporate governance. Are there practical limits to the connection between securities law and corporate governance? The US again illustrates the point, as Congress has increasingly crossed the traditional boundary …

Unintended Consequences: The Link Between Judge Friendly's Texas Gulf Sulphur Concurrence And Recent Supreme Court Decisions Misconstruing Rule 10b-5, Margaret V. Sachs

Scholarly Works

In his Texas Gulf Sulphur concurrence, Judge Henry J. Friendly coun- seled the federal district courts concerning the numerous pending satellite class actions that had been filed under Section 10(b) of the Securities Ex- change Act and Rule 10b-5. In the course of so doing, he argued forcefully that private Rule 10b-5 litigation should be curtailed. Finding his argument convincing, the Supreme Court issued four major decisions restricting the Rule between 1975 and 1994, while nonetheless expanding it in Basic Inc. v. Levinson. Congress responded by blessing both aspects of the Court’s jurisprudence – imposing its own set of …

When Is The ‘Force’ With A Securities Claim That Is ‘Brought To Enforce’ A Federal Securities Law?, Michelle Wellnitz

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Dictation And Delegation In Securities Regulation, Usha Rodrigues

Scholarly Works

When Congress undertakes major financial reform, either it dictates the precise contours of the law itself or it delegates the bulk of the rulemaking to an administrative agency. This choice has critical consequences. Making the law self-executing in federal legislation is swift, not subject to administrative tinkering, and less vulnerable than rulemaking to judicial second-guessing. Agency action is, in contrast, deliberate, subject to ongoing bureaucratic fiddling and more vulnerable than statutes to judicial challenge.

This Article offers the first empirical analysis of the extent of congressional delegation in securities law from 1970 to the present day, examining nine pieces of …

How Much Can It Be Bent Before Breaking? Changing The Foundations Of Arbitration In Securities Disputes, M. Saleh Jaberi, Bruno Zeller

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Following the emergence of arbitration in the stock market disputes, governments and brokers have tried to modify the arbitration procedure in order to adapt it to their needs. Consequently, the foundations of arbitration, such as freedom to enter into an arbitration agreement and selection of arbitrators, have changed in relation to rules and practice. Some of the securities arbitrations have judicialized and have lost the fundamental principles of arbitration, while others have changed only some of the traditional arbitration traits. It is important to protect the nature of arbitration; otherwise, the necessary support of courts for the arbitration procedure and …

When Does Corporate Criminal Liability For Insider Trading Make Sense?, John P. Anderson

Journal Articles

It is clear that not all insider trading is victimless, and not all employers of insider traders are innocent. But I am convinced that these critics are correct to point out that the current enforcement regime is absurdly overbroad in that it affords no principled guarantee to corporate victims of insider trading that they will not be indicted for the crimes perpetrated against them. The law should be reformed to ensure that corporations are only held criminally liable where they are guilty of some wrongdoing.

The Underground Rulification Of The Ordinary Business Operations Exclusion, Reilly S. Steel

Faculty Scholarship

In its landmark Cracker Barrel no-action letter, the SEC staff an­nounced a bright-line rule permitting exclusion of any shareholder pro­posal pertaining to a company’s management of its general workforce, even if focused on a significant social policy issue such as employment discrimination, under the “ordinary business operations” exclusion. The SEC reversed Cracker Barrel in 1998, returning to a case-specific approach to determining whether proposals fall under the exclusion. This Note examines 250 no-action letters from the 2015 proxy season and finds evidence indicating that the staff has, contrary to official SEC policy, returned to a rule-like approach to the ordinary …

Attorneys Beware: Increased Liability For Providing Advice To Corporate Clients Issuing Securites, Joseph Reece

Akron Law Review

Although the law in this area is rapidly evolving, a general overview of recent case law seems to indicate that attorneys may be liable even though their participation in the issuance of securities only involved rendering routine services to a corporate client. If an attorney were to have an active part in activities such as business planning or the promotion of securities, their exposure to potential liability would increase dramatically. As a result of this rapid change in the law, there is a degree of uncertainty concerning the potential liabilities attorneys may face when assisting their corporate clients in issuing …