Securities Law Commons^™

The Settlement Of Investment Disputes: A Discussion Of Democratic Accountability And The Public Interest, Lise Johnson, Brooke Guven

Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment Staff Publications

In this briefing note, CCSI considers the threats to principles of good governance, including government accountability, respect for the rule of law, transparency, and respect for citizens’ rights and interests under domestic law and international human rights norms, that are posed by the settlement of treaty-based investor-state disputes. The authors also consider the exacerbated threats posed by the settlement of disputes that include government counterclaims, and highlight the need for the ISDS reform agenda to include a focus on these issues.

Too Big To Disclose: Firm Size And Materiality Blindspots In Securities Regulation, George S. Georgiev

Articles

This Article argues that the securities disclosure regime contains previously unexamined structural deficiencies that pertain to the information provided by the largest public companies. These deficiencies arise from the operation of the materiality standard, a core element of the disclosure regime that is used in a number of SEC disclosure rules. The materiality standard is designed to limit firms' disclosure to information that would be of importance to investors, and to prevent the overproduction of information. I suggest, however, that in the case of large firms the materiality standard can also lead to the underdisclosure of information-or to "materiality blindspots." …

Articulating A Rights-Based Argument For Land Contract Disclosure, Jesse Coleman, Kaitlin Y. Cordes

Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment Staff Publications

In March 2017, CCSI presented a working paper titled "Articulating a Rights-Basted Argument for Land Contract Disclosure" at the World Bank Land & Poverty Conference. The paper explores whether and how existing state obligations under human rights law require disclosure of land contracts and more transparent contracting processes around land investments. It focuses on the extent to which guidelines for responsible land-based investment, which encourage greater transparency, reflect existing host and home state obligations. Based on a review of relevant human rights law and authoritative interpretations thereof, the paper articulates rights-based arguments for land contract disclosure, based in particular on …

Submission Regarding Amendments To The Icsid Arbitration Rules, Columbia Center On Sustainable Investment

Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment Staff Publications

In March 2017, CCSI submitted comments to the ICSID Secretariat regarding proposed revisions to ICSID’s arbitration rules. CCSI’s submission provided illustrative suggestions for amendments regarding the following issues: recognizing and safeguarding of the rights and interests of non-parties; improving transparency of the dispute resolution process; promoting transparency of ownership over investments; preventing actual and apparent conflicts of interest; addressing concerns raised by third-party funding; ensuring legitimacy of settlement agreements; and ensuring legitimacy of the rule revision process itself.

Public Consultation On A Multilateral Reform Of Investment Dispute Settlement, Columbia Center On Sustainable Investment

Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment Staff Publications

In March 2017 CCSI made a submission to the European Commission (EC) in response to its “Public consultation on a multilateral reform of investment dispute settlement.” CCSI’s submission consisted of a response to the form questionnaire created by the EC and a supplementary “Position Paper” to explain in greater depth CCSI’s views on the EC’s proposed Multilateral Investment Court (MIC).

In its Position Paper, CCSI emphasizes the importance of international investment and international law to sustainable development objectives. The submission stresses, however, that the EC’s proposed MIC does not address, and therefore does not remedy, the most problematic aspects of …

The Case For Federal Pre-Emption Of State Blue Sky Laws, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

State blue sky laws—state laws that regulate a company’s offer and sale of securities—are a substantial barrier to businesses’ efficient access to external capital. The registration provisions in state blue sky laws have been especially harmful to small businesses, a vital component of our economy that may account for 30% of the nation’s employment. The costs associated with complying with more than fifty separate and independent obligations to register securities often exceed what small businesses can pay and thus may foreclose small businesses from the capital market. At the same time, requiring small businesses to comply with multiple registration regimes …

Reforming Sec Alj Proceedings, Joanna Howard

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note considers the current constitutional challenges to SEC administrative proceedings and suggests process reforms to enhance fairness for respondents. Challenges have developed since the Dodd-Frank Act expanded the SEC’s ability to use administrative proceedings. Arguments that there is a pre-existing flaw in the method of appointing administrative law judges provide the most potential for success. The Tenth Circuit’s December 2016 decision against the SEC in Bandimere has created a split, diverging from the D.C. Circuit’s analysis of that question in Lucia. Resolution by the Supreme Court may be inevitable. Even if the challengers do ultimately succeed, this will …

Rethinking Corporate Governance For A Bondholder Financed, Systemically Risky World, Steven L. Schwarcz

William & Mary Law Review

This Article makes two arguments that, combined, demonstrate an important synergy: first, including bondholders in corporate governance could help to reduce systemic risk because bondholders are more risk averse than shareholders; second, corporate governance should include bondholders because bonds now dwarf equity as a source of corporate financing and bond prices are increasingly tied to firm performance.

What Exactly Is Market Integrity? An Analysis Of One Of The Core Objectives Of Securities Regulation, Janet Austin

William & Mary Business Law Review

One of the main objectives of securities regulation around the world is to protect the integrity or fairness of the markets. This, together with protecting investors, improving the efficiency of markets, and protecting the markets from systemic risk, form the four fundamental goals of securities regulation.

However, what exactly is envisaged by this concept of market integrity or fairness? Are these simply norms of behaviour incapable of further definition? Despite their importance, relatively little attention has been given to these concepts in the literature. Do they, for example, require securities regulators to just work towards eliminating dishonest trading practices such …

The Constitutionality Of Sec Administrative Proceedings: The Sec Should Cure Its Alj Appointment Scheme, Kaela Dahan

Cardozo Law Review

The note examines the constitutional challenges surrounding the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) use of administrative law judges (ALJs), particularly under Section 929P of the Dodd-Frank Act. It argues that the SEC's ALJ appointment process violates the Appointments Clause, as current ALJs have not been properly appointed by SEC Commissioners. The note also highlights due process and Seventh Amendment concerns, as defendants in SEC administrative proceedings lack rights such as trial by jury and immediate appellate review. To maintain the integrity of its administrative processes, the SEC must adopt measures to ensure its ALJ appointments comply with constitutional requirements.

Sec Enforcement Attorneys: Should I Stay Or Should I Go?, Adam C. Pritchard, Stephen J. Choi

Law & Economics Working Papers

We examine the career paths of attorneys in the Enforcement Division at the SEC. Using a variety of performance metrics, we find evidence that long term lawyers and lawyers in regional offices do not perform as well as other SEC attorneys. We also report that men and women may differ in their career paths in this field. We find that early-stage female attorneys perform just as well as male attorneys. Notwithstanding their comparable performance, these early-stage women are less likely to get a raise or promotion. We find that women are more likely to stay at the SEC, at least …

Glass Half-Empty Approach To Securities Regulation, Wendy Gerwick Couture

Articles

In this Article, I propose a novel approach, which I call the “glass-half-empty” approach, to analyze the appropriate boundaries of securities regulation. This approach assumes a baseline of “full” regulation and then analyzes which regulations should be stripped away because the costs exceed the benefits. This is the opposite of the traditional approach, which assumes a baseline of zero regulation, identifies a market failure, and then weighs the costs and benefits of regulatory intervention.

Although, in theory, the two approaches should reach the same conclusions about the appropriate bounds of securities regulation, the glass-half-empty approach yields new insights because it …

Whistle While You Work: Interpreting Retaliation Remedies Available To Whistleblowers In The Dodd-Frank Act, Max Birmingham

Florida A & M University Law Review

This Article asserts that judicial activism occurs when a court goes beyond the plain meaning of the text that is plain and unambiguous, to promulgate its politics. This Article does not make the argument nor infer that this is the sole definition of judicial activism. Rather, this Article is narrowing the scope by enumerating a specific act that falls within the category of judicial activism.

This argument proceeds as follows. Part I provides context of judicial activism. Part II analyzes how various courts have interpreted the statute, and whether the interpretation is consistent with canons of construction. Part III assesses …

One Size Does Not Fit All: A Contextual Approach To Fiduciary Duties Owed To Preferred Stockholders From Venture Capital To Public Preferred To Family Business, Juliet P. Kostritsky

Faculty Publications

This Article examines whether corporations should owe fiduciary duties to its preferred stockholders as preferred stockholders across all settings of preferred stock holding. In one context, sophisticated venture capitalists purchase preferred stock after carefully negotiating the stock price, control over the corporate governance, and other key stipulations by contract. Additionally, because the initial preferred stockholder could protect its interests through staged financing or board control, the preferred stockholder might not discount the stock even if it lacked protection since the other protective devices made the lack of such protections inconsequential so the initial holders won’t pay for these added fiduciary …

Risk Of Regulatory Arbitrage: A Response To "Securities Regulation In Virtual Space", Wendy Gerwick Couture

Articles

In Securities Regulation in Virtual Space, Eric C. Chaffee explores the potential applicability of the securities laws to virtual transactions based on virtual activity and argues that, although many of these transactions likely qualify as “investment contracts” under S.E.C. v. W.J. Howey Co., they should be excluded under the context clause because, among other reasons, application of the securities laws would stifle creativity within this innovative space. This Response proposes a reframing of the Howey test as a response to the risk of regulatory arbitrage, argues that the context clause should only exclude transactions that do not pose such …

The Rule Of Lenity And The Enforcement Of The Federal Securities Laws, Anna Currier

American University Business Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Search Of Balance: A Critical Review Of Private Placement Regulations Of The United States And South Korea, Daeil Kim

Maurer Theses and Dissertations

Two main objectives of the securities offering regulation are to protect investors from frauds and to facilitate capital formation. Balancing these two objectives is a difficult task particularly for the private placement regulation. The primary focus of this study is to assess whether the current private placement regulations of the United States and South Korea are properly balancing these two objectives.

First, this study broadly reviews securities offering regulations and the historical developments of the private placement regulations of the United States and South Korea, and compares the current regulations of both countries. For the U.S. private placement regulation, this …

Regulation A-Plus’S Identity Crisis: A One-Size-Fits-None Approach To Capital Formation, Zachary Naidich

Brooklyn Law Review

This note considers whether, and in what ways, Regulation A-Plus will change how businesses access growth capital. It concludes that Regulation A-Plus is a largely unnecessary addition to the already existing range of funding options. The Regulation is poised to change how firms access capital but is unlikely to increase total access or fundraising. Further, this change is unlikely to promote financial health. The note ultimately concludes that regulators should focus on improving existing mechanisms and not attempt to introduce a new and unnecessary one.

Clicks And Tricks: How Computer Hackers Avoid 10b-5 Liability, Ryan H. Gilinson

Brooklyn Law Review

This note argues that computer hackers who sell inside information instead of trading on it themselves, referred to in the note as hacker-sellers, avoid liability under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. Rule 10b-5 criminalizes the use of a manipulative or deceptive device “in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.” Hacker-sellers fall outside the scope of this rule for two reasons. First, the type of hacking employed by hacker-sellers is not always “deceptive,” and only the forms of hacking which deceive the computer into thinking an authorized user is seeking access are …

An Exception To The Derivative Rule: Allowing Mutual Fund Investors To Bring Suits Directly, Jamie D. Kurtz

Brooklyn Law Review

Mutual funds differ greatly from traditional corporations in the way they are formed and operated. Despite these differences, courts apply the same rules for derivative shareholder litigation to both types of entities. While these rules make sense and were mostly created with corporations in mind, courts have generally been unwilling to consider mutual funds’ unique characteristics in determining whether to allow direct litigation from shareholders. This note explores those unique characteristics and the usual policy reasons for requiring derivative litigation. It concludes that in most cases these unique characteristics make a derivative suit nearly impossible to sustain. Further, the normal …