Securities Law Prof Blog

Editor: Eric C. Chaffee
Univ. of Toledo College of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Monday, February 23, 2015

SEC Speaks 2015

At SEC Speaks 2015 on February 20, 2015 in Washington, D.C., Chair Mary Jo WhiteCommissioner Luis A. AguilarCommissioner Daniel M. GallagherCommissioner Michael S. Piwowar, and Commissioner Kara M. Stein delivered remarks.  The texts of their speeches are linked to their names.

February 23, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

New in Print

The following law review articles relating to securities regulation are now available in paper format:

Jesse Scott, Student Article, The JOBS Act: Encouraging Capital Formation,  But Not IPOs, 7 J. Bus. Entrepreneurship & L. 367 (2014).

Sonia A. Steinway, Comment, SEC "Monetary Penalties Speak Very Loudly," But What Do They Say? A Critical Analysis of the SEC's New Enforcement Approach, 124 Yale L.J. 209 (2014).

Sullivan & Cromwell Conference on Challenges in Global Financial Services, Keynote address by Daniel K. Tarullo; articles by Sanjai Bhagat, Brian Bolton, Roberta Romano, Henry T.C. Hu, Thomas J. Brennan, Andrew W. Lo, Jonathan Macey, Stijn Claessens, Edward J. Kane, Frederick Schauer, Gary Gorton and Richard Herring. 31 Yale J. on Reg. 505-881 (2014).

February 23, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

This Week in Securities Litigation

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Ponsford on Virtual Currencies

Matthew Ponsford has posted A Comparative Analysis of Bitcoin and Other Decentralized Virtual Currencies: Legal Regulation in the People's Republic of China, Canada, and the United States on SSRN with the following abstract:

Bitcoin, also known as a decentralized virtual currency (DVC), is regulated differently in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Canada, and the United States, and represents a vastly underdeveloped area of the law. No country has currently backed Bitcoin. Launched in 2009, and founded by Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin is a “decentralized peer-to-peer virtual currency.” Other virtual currencies include Litecoin, Namecoin, Auroracoin, Peercoin, and Dogecoin – about 500 varieties in total – but research here primarily focuses on Bitcoin. A comparative analysis helps discern how these respective countries classify Bitcoin (e.g., a virtual object, currency, or potential security), and how these jurisdictions regulate, or intend to regulate, DVCs. Bitcoin is identified as a “currency,” throughout the paper, but the classification is heavily contested. Questions for analyses include: are there appropriate existing legal frameworks to regulate Bitcoin? What securities regulation challenges does Bitcoin pose? What are the consumer and investor protection concerns associated with Bitcoin compared to traditional financial exchanges? What are the cross-jurisdictional challenges of virtual currency transactions that operate over the Internet (e.g., money laundering, or fraudulent activities)? Research incorporates securities commission reports, social and political commentary from secondary sources, and relevant jurisprudence and legislation. Findings help situate the current climate of Bitcoin globally, and assess how its regulation differs relative to technological, economic, social, financial, and political forces.

February 18, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Hill on Virtual Currencies

Julie Andersen Hill has posted Virtual Currencies & Federal Law on SSRN with the following abstract:

The rise of virtual currencies, like many innovations, poses legal questions. Most existing laws do not contemplate the existence of virtual currencies. Can existing U.S. criminal law, tax law, banking law, securities law, and consumer protection law nevertheless be applied to virtual currencies? This article provides an update on federal regulators' recent attempts to tackle these questions. Because virtual currencies are new, the law is still developing. There are unanswered questions and the current answers are subject to change. Nevertheless, we must start somewhere.

February 18, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, February 16, 2015

Lazaro & Edwards on the Regulation of Investment Advice

Christine Lazaro and Benjamin P. Edwards have posted The Fragmented Regulation of Investment Advice: A Call for Harmonization on SSRN with the following abstract:

Articles on investment advice have largely focused on two categories of individuals – investment advisers and brokers. Our article takes a unique focus by arguing that harmonizing the regulation of investment advice must necessarily include insurance producers as well. We argue that the regulation of all investment advice given to retail investors must be harmonized, which can only be done by the adoption of a new Investment Advice Act.

To support our argument, we first trace the history of the regulation of investment advisers, brokers and insurance producers and explore the varying standards that apply to the advice each individual gives to retail investors. Next, we focus on one investment product specifically, equity-indexed annuities, which has blurred the lines between securities and insurance. This product highlights the issues inherent in the current fragmented regulatory structure.

Next, we propose a solution in the form of an Investment Advice Act, which would replace the fragmented federal regime governing investment advisers and brokers. It would also create new a level of federal regulation to govern investment advice by insurance producers. We lay out the general parameters of the Act, and discuss the scope of conduct such an Act should regulate.

February 16, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

New in Print

The following law review articles relating to securities regulation are now available in paper format:

Valian A. Afshar, Note, A Blended Approach to Reducing the Costs of Shareholder Litigation, 113 Mich. L. Rev. 315 (2014).

Mehrsa Baradaran, Regulation by Hypothetical, 67 Vand. L. Rev. 1247 (2014).

Amy Coleman, A Plague of Locusts: The JOBS Act as Foe More than Friend, 16 Duq. Bus. L.J. 43 (2013).

Polina Demina, Note, Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers: A Behavioral-Economics Analysis of Competing Suggestions for Reform, 113 Mich. L. Rev. 429 (2014).

Jamie Hopkins & Katie Hopkins, Not All That Glitters Is Gold - Limitations on Equity Crowdfunding Regulations, 16 Duq. Bus. L.J. 1 (2013).

Steven L. Schwarcz & Ori Sharon, The Bankruptcy-Law Safe Harbor for Derivatives: A Path-Dependence Analysis, 71 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1715 (2014). 

Latasha D. Terry, Comment, Revenue Recognition Rules for Bundled Sales in High Technology Undermine the Purpose of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act, 48 U.S.F. L. Rev. 585 (2014).

Anne M. Tucker, The Outside Investor: Citizen Shareholders & Corporate Alienation, 11 U. St. Thomas L.J. 99 (2013).

February 16, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

This Week in Securities Litigation

SEC Announces Agenda and Panelists for Proxy Voting Roundtable

Details available here.

February 16, 2015 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)