Securities Law Prof Blog

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

Thursday, July 5, 2018

Sharfman on Dual Class Share Voting Versus “Empty Voting” of Mutual Fund Advisors

Bernard S. Sharfman has a nice post on Dual Class Share Voting Versus the “Empty Voting” of Mutual Fund Advisors over at the The Conference Board Governance Blog.  In part, he writes:

From time to time I am asked to explain how I can support the disproportionate voting found in dual class shares while at the same time strongly criticizing the “empty voting” of mutual fund advisors. While both are corporate governance issues that need to be addressed separately, both do involve the same phenomenon, the ability of certain shareholders to obtain voting power that is much greater than their economic interest. . . . Dual class shares are a value maximizing result of a specific firm’s private ordering of corporate governance arrangements.  They are only agreed to when it is expected to result in a successful offering to new investors.  In contrast, empty voting has become a new systemic risk for all those who invest in the equities of U.S. public companies and for public companies in general.  It is an agency cost that needs to be addressed and controlled.

July 5, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, July 1, 2018

Book Announcement: Anderson on Insider Trading

John P. Anderson has just published a new book with Cambridge University Press, Insider Trading: Law, Ethics, and Reform.  The description of the book from the website is as follows:

As long as insider trading has existed, people have been fixated on it. Newspapers give it front page coverage. Cult movies romanticize it. Politicians make or break careers by pillorying, enforcing, and sometimes engaging in it. But, oddly, no one seems to know what’s really wrong with insider trading, or - because Congress has never defined it - exactly what it is. This confluence of vehemence and confusion has led to a dysfunctional enforcement regime in the United States that runs counter to its stated goals of efficiency and fairness. In this illuminating book, John P. Anderson summarizes the current state of insider trading law in the US and around the globe. After engaging in a thorough analysis of the practice of insider trading from the normative standpoints of economic efficiency, moral right and wrong, and virtue theory, he offers concrete proposals for much-needed reform.

More information about the book can be obtained here.  Although Professor Anderson and I reach different conclusions on insider trading in some instances, I highly recommend this text for anyone interested in the topic.  The book has already received excellent reviews from many top corporate law scholars.  A discounted copy can by obtained by using this flyer.

 

 

July 1, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Trautman on Virtual Currencies

Lawrence J. Trautman has posted Bitcoin, Virtual Currencies, and the Struggle of Law and Regulation to Keep Pace on SSRN with the following abstract:

At less than a decade old, Bitcoin and other virtual currencies have had a major societal impact, and proven to be a unique payment systems challenge for law enforcement, financial regulatory authorities worldwide, and the investment community. Rapid introduction and diffusion of technological changes throughout society, such as the blockchain that serves as Bitcoin’s crypto-foundation, continue to outpace the ability of law and regulation to keep pace. During 2017 alone, the market price of Bitcoin rose 1,735 percent, from about $970 to $14,292, causing an investor feeding frenzy. As of March 31, 2018, a total of 1,595 cryptocurrencies are reported, having an approximate market capitalization of $266.97 billion at that date. A brief history of the fast moving adoption of blockchain-based technology is provided, along with a look at the efforts of regulators to keep up with the staggering worldwide growth in the usage of virtual currencies.

In the United States, enforcement actions for violations of law involving virtual currencies are brought primarily by: The Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC); The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and The Department of The Treasury through the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). This Article contributes to the literature and our understanding of the constant struggle of law and regulation to keep pace with rapid technological developments.

July 1, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Gurrea-Martínez & Remolina on Initial Coin Offerings

Aurelio Gurrea-Martínez and Nydia Remolina have posted The Law and Finance of Initial Coin Offerings on SSRN with the following abstract:

The rise of new technologies is changing the way companies raise funds. Along with the recent increase of crowdfunding in the past years, a new form of funding has emerged more recently: the use of Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs). In 2017, companies raised more than $4 billion through ICOs in the United States, and more than $11billion has been raised during the first semester of 2018. In a typical ICO, a company raises cryptocurrencies giving some rights in return. The different nature and features of these rights, known as “tokens”, are generating many controversies among securities regulators around the world. Namely, it is not clear whether and, if so, when these tokens should comply with securities law. Securities regulators are addressing this issue in a very different manner across jurisdictions: while countries like the United States, Switzerland and Singapore are requiring companies to comply with existing securities rules only when a company issues “security tokens”, other jurisdictions, such as China and South Korea, have prohibited ICOs, and Mexico subject any issuance of tokens to a system of full control ex ante. Nevertheless, ICOs not only generate these challenges for securities regulators. They also arise many other issues from an accounting, finance, corporate governance, data protection, anti-money laundry and insolvency law perspective. By providing a comparative and interdisciplinary analysis of ICO, our paper seeks to provide regulators and policy-makers with a set of recommendations to deal with ICOs in a way that may promote innovation and firms’ access to finance without harming investor protection, market integrity and the stability of the financial system.

July 1, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Anand, Choi, Pritchard & Puri on Insider Trading

Anita Anand, Stephen J. Choi, Adam C. Pritchard, and Poonam Puri have posted An Empirical Comparison of Insider Trading Enforcement in Canada and the United States on SSRN with the following abstract:

Canadian and American securities market regulators have differing approaches to enforcement. In this article, we present the results of an empirical study comparing a highly salient aspect of securities enforcement—insider trading—in Canada and the United States. We make a number of important findings. First, adjusting for trading volume, Canada has a greater intensity of enforcement when compared to the U.S. Second, Canadian securities regulators primarily concern themselves with insider trading in Canadian companies, while the SEC brings more enforcement actions involving insider trading in companies incorporated outside the U.S. Third, we do not find significant differences in the fraction of actions involving multiple traded companies between Canada and the U.S.. However, we do see that U.S. investigations involve a significantly greater number of defendants and that the SEC is more than twice as likely to pursue tippers or tippees (although we observe no significant difference in the likelihood that top insiders will be pursued). Fourth, we find that U.S. cases are significantly more likely to result in a criminal referral leading to prosecution. Fifth, we find that settlements are more likely in the U.S. Finally, in terms of penalties, we find no significant difference in monetary penalties between the two countries. However, we do find that Canada is more likely to apply a bar as a sanction, but if a bar is applied, the U.S. is more likely to make the bar permanent. These findings neither demonstrate a need for systemic reform in either jurisdiction nor suggest that centralized regulation is necessarily better from an enforcement perspective. But, they do provide insight into the differing points of regulatory emphasis in two jurisdictions. From a comparative perspective, our research thus allows regulators to begin to evaluate whether their enforcement approach is optimal on the basis of quantitative data.

July 1, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, June 25, 2018

New Securities Law Articles in Print

The following law review article relating to securities regulation is now available in paper format:

John De Vito, Student Article, Discretion to Act: How the Federal Reserve’s Decisions Whether to Provide Emergency Loans During the Financial Crisis Were Discretionary and Why Dodd-Frank Falls Short of Preventing Future Bailouts, 10 J. Bus. Entrepreneurship & L. 295 (2017).

Daniel Isaacson, The Perfect Storm Is Brewing Once Again: What Scaling Back Dodd-Frank Will Mean for the Credit Default Swap, 10 J. Bus. Entrepreneurship & L. 249 (2017).

Brian T. Kloeblen, Comment, Splitting the Baby: The Death of Small Business, 48 Seton Hall L. Rev. 535 (2018).

Gabrielle Schwartz, Note, ‘Deriving’ an Understanding of the Extraterritorial Applicability of the Commodity Exchange Act, 91 St. John’s L. Rev. 769-791 (2017).

Clare Tilton, Note, Women and Whistleblowing: Exploring Gender Effects in Policy Design, 35 Colum. J. Gender & L. 338 (2018).

June 25, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, June 18, 2018

Chaffee on Virtual Securities

I have posted Securities Regulation in Virtual Space on SSRN with the following abstract:

Video games, virtual worlds, virtual reality, and augmented reality are rapidly developing and evolving in exciting ways. As with any technology-related advancement, new legal issues are created as to how to apply and adapt the law. The question regarding the application of federal securities regulation to these virtual realms is an interesting one that has not been addressed.

If securities existing entirely within virtual space are securities for purposes of federal securities law, software developers, platform owners, and users become subject to the registration requirements and anti-fraud provisions of that body of law along with the rest of its provisions. Based upon a strict reading of the definition of a security found within the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, securities can exist entirely within virtual space because investment contracts, a type of security, can be created in such space. However, because the definition sections found in the Securities Act and Exchange Act both begin with the prefatory language “unless the context otherwise requires,” an analysis is required to determine whether these securities should be excluded from the application of federal securities law. Based upon the intended scope of federal securities regulation, various constitutional law principles, and concerns about hindering creativity and regulatory experimentation, the virtual context requires that securities existing entirely within virtual space be excluded from the scope of federal securities regulation.

Various concerns do exist regarding excluding such securities from the application of federal securities law including that that application of federal securities regulation is necessary for investor protection, to prevent an unworkable patchwork of state regulation, and to ensure that these rapidly developing and evolving virtual environments are properly regulated. Ultimately, however, the arguments for excluding such securities from the application of federal securities law outweigh the arguments for applying it.

June 18, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Fisch, Hamdani & Davidoff Solomon on Passive Investors

Jill E. Fisch, Assaf Hamdani, and Steven Davidoff Solomon have posted Passive Investors on SSRN with the following abstract:

The increasing percentage of the modern capital markets owned by passive investors – index funds and ETFs – has received extensive media and academic attention. This growing ownership concentration as well as the potential power of passive investors to affect both corporate governance and operational decision-making at their portfolio firms has led some commentators to call for passive investors to be subject to increased regulation and even disenfranchisement. These reactions fail to account for the institutional structure of passive investors and the market context in which they operate. Specifically, this literature assumes that passive investors compete primarily on cost and that, as a result, they lack incentives to engage meaningfully with their portfolio companies.

We respond to this failure by providing the first theoretical framework for passive investment and its implications for corporate governance. Our key insight is that although index funds are locked into their investments, their investors are not. Like all mutual fund shareholders, investors in index funds can exit at any time by selling their shares and receiving the net asset value of their ownership interest. This exit option causes mutual funds – active and passive – to compete for investors both on price and performance. While the conventional view focuses on the competition between passive funds tracking the same index, our analysis suggests that passive funds also compete against active funds. Passive fund sponsors therefore have an incentive to take measures to neutralize the comparative advantage enjoyed by active funds, that is, their ability to use their investment discretion to generate alpha. Because they cannot compete by exiting underperforming companies, passive investors must compete by using “voice” to prevent asset outflow.

We show that passive investors behave in accordance with this theory – their engagement with portfolio firms continues to grow, and they are devoting increasing resources to that engagement. Passive investors also exploit their comparative advantages – their size, breadth of portfolio and resulting economies of scale – to focus on improving corporate governance, efforts that reduce the underperformance and mispricing of portfolio companies. Passive investors thus seek to reduce the relative advantage that active funds gain through their ability to trade.

We conclude by exploring the overall implications of the rise of passive investment. Significantly, although existing critiques of passive investors are unfounded, the rise of passive investing has the potential to raise concerns about ownership concentration, conflicts of interest and corporate law’s traditional deference to shareholders.

June 18, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Trautman on Virtual Currencies

Lawrence J. Trautman has posted Bitcoin, Virtual Currencies, and the Struggle of Law and Regulation to Keep Pace on SSRN with the following abstract: 

At less than a decade old, Bitcoin and other virtual currencies have had a major societal impact, and proven to be a unique payment systems challenge for law enforcement, financial regulatory authorities worldwide, and the investment community. Rapid introduction and diffusion of technological changes throughout society, such as the blockchain that serves as Bitcoin’s crypto-foundation, continue to outpace the ability of law and regulation to keep pace. During 2017 alone, the market price of Bitcoin rose 1,735 percent, from about $970 to $14,292, causing an investor feeding frenzy. As of March 31, 2018, a total of 1,595 cryptocurrencies are reported, having an approximate market capitalization of $266.97 billion at that date. A brief history of the fast moving adoption of blockchain-based technology is provided, along with a look at the efforts of regulators to keep up with the staggering worldwide growth in the usage of virtual currencies.

In the United States, enforcement actions for violations of law involving virtual currencies are brought primarily by: The Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC); The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and The Department of The Treasury through the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). This Article contributes to the literature and our understanding of the constant struggle of law and regulation to keep pace with rapid technological developments.

June 18, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

New Securities Law Articles in Print

The following law review article relating to securities regulation is now available in paper format:

Sean Belcher, Note, Tracing the Invisible: Section 11's Tracing Requirement and Blockchain, 16 Colo. Tech. L.J. 145 (2017).

Merritt B. Fox, Lawrence R. Glosten & Gabriel V. Rauterberg, Stock Market Manipulation and Its Regulation, 35 Yale J. on Reg. 67 (2018).

Paul G. Mahoney, Deregulation and the Subprime Crisis, 104 Va. L. Rev. 235 (2018).

Gideon Mark, Confidential Witness Interviews in Securities Litigation, 96 N.C. L. Rev. 789 (2018).

Patrick McCarney, Note, False Start: Carving a Niche for Established Small Business Participation in Regulation Crowdfunding Rules Designed for Startups, 51 Ind. L. Rev. 277 (2018).

Jeongho Nam, Note, Model BIT: An Ideal Prototype Or a Tool for Efficient Breach?, 48 Geo. J. Int'l L. 1275 (2017).

June 18, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, June 6, 2018

Lazaro on Fiduciary Standards

Christine Lazaro has posted Defining 'Fiduciary': Differences in Fiduciary Standards within the Securities Industry on SSRN with the following abstract:

Investment professionals are subject to varying standards of conduct when providing advice to clients. The standards range from providing advice which is suitable to acting consistently with a fiduciary standard.

The article provides a brief history of the applicable securities statutes governing investment advice. It discusses the differences in the enactment of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Next, the article discusses how each statute has impacted the standards applicable to brokers and investment advisers. Investment advisers are deemed fiduciaries. Brokers are held to the “suitability” standard, unless the broker is exercising discretion over client funds or there exist other special circumstances. In those cases, brokers are considered fiduciaries as well. Finally, both investment advisers and brokers may be considered fiduciaries when providing investment advice in connection with retirement assets.

June 6, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Loewenstein on Materiality

Mark Loewenstein has posted Thinking Fast and Slow About the Concept of Materiality on SSRN with the following abstract:

Determining whether, for securities law purposes, a misrepresentation or omission is material raises interesting questions. The Court of Appeals in SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulfur Co. provided some guidance on materiality and the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in several times in the past 50 years. This article first discusses what Texas Gulf Sulfur contributed to the doctrine of materiality, then briefly considers other dimensions of the doctrine, and finally moves to its thesis: The doctrine of materiality should take into account important psychological insights and heuristics that may affect the way that a fact finder decides whether a misrepresentation or omission is material. In that regard, this article draws heavily on the work of a Nobel Prize winning psychologist, Daniel Kahneman, and his influential book, Thinking, Fast and Slow.

June 6, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Solomon on Shareholder Voting

Dov Solomon has posted The Importance of Inferior Voting Rights in Dual-Class Firms on SSRN with the following abstract:

Over the past several years, corporate law scholarship has carefully analyzed the effects of dual-class capital structures, which allocate superior voting rights to insiders and inferior voting rights to public shareholders. This Article adds to the literature by focusing on a unique and novel type of dual-class structure—one in which the public shares have no voting rights at all. It notes that this structure is fundamentally different because in the absence of even highly diluted voting rights in public hands, the firm does not have to meet certain types of disclosure rules and corporate governance standards. Nonvoting shareholders are deprived of these significant components of investor protection.

After carefully identifying the serious consequences of nonvoting common stock for investor protection, the Article suggests two ways to address them. First, the Securities and Exchange Commission should act to protect nonvoting shareholders by requiring the same level of disclosure when nonvoting stock is issued, as is required when voting stock is issued. Towards implementing this proposal, the Article distinguishes between the situation of no voting rights and the long-standing federal court decision asserting that the regulation of voting rights is beyond the delegated authority of the Commission. Second, stock exchange rules should impose requirements for listed firms aimed at protecting holders of nonvoting stock. These rules would grant nonvoting shareholders certain disclosure and governance rights they do not otherwise have under federal or state law. The Article’s proposals directly address the implications of nonvoting stock for disclosure and corporate governance, and therefore are preferable to the current incidental reaction of major index providers to dual-class capital structures.

June 6, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

New Securities Law Articles in Print

The following law review article relating to securities regulation is now available in paper format:

Henrik Born, Note, Screening Out the Losers: How Delaware Corporations Can Implement Fee-Shifting to Deter Frivolous Strike Suits, 14 N.Y.U. J.L. & Bus. 351 (2017).

Martin Edwards, The Big Crowd and the Small Enterprise: Intracorporate Disputes in the Close-But-Crowdfunded Firm, 122 Penn St. L. Rev. 411 (2018).

Mira Ganor, Toehold Collaborations Beyond Insider Trading, 14 N.Y.U. J.L. & Bus. 187 (2017).

Yehonatan Givati, Of Snitches and Riches: Optimal IRS and SEC Whistleblower Rewards, 55 Harv. J. on Legis. 105 (2018).

Peter V. Marchetti, A Note to Congress: Amend Section 546(E) of the Bankruptcy Code to Harmonize the Policies of Fraudulent Conveyance Law and Protection of the Financial Markets, 26 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 1 (2018).

Daniel J. Morrissey, Are Mutual Funds Robbing Retirement Savings?, 14 N.Y.U. J.L. & Bus. 143 (2017).

Samuel Nadler, Note, Federal Fiduciary Duties and Private Equity: The Search for Workable Standards, 2018 Colum. Bus. L. Rev. 254.

Darren Pouliot, Note, A Trinity of Interpretations: Finding the Current Status of the SEC's Significant Social Policy Exception, 2018 Colum. Bus. L. Rev. 287.

Kory Steen, Note, Vacating an Arbitration Award in Federal Court: The Jurisdictional Issues of the "Look Through" Approach and Arbitrators Violating Securities SRO Regulations, 94 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 459 (2017).

Anne M. Tucker & Holly van den Toorn, Will Swing Pricing Save Sedentary Shareholders?, 2018 Colum. Bus. L. Rev. 130.

Amy Deen Westbrook & David A. Westbrook, Unicorns, Guardians, and the Concentration of the U.S. Equity Markets, 96 Neb. L. Rev. 688 (2018).

Verity Winship & Jennifer K. Robbennolt, Admissions of Guilt in Civil Enforcement, 102 Minn. L. Rev. 1077 (2018).

Verity Winship & Jennifer K. Robbennolt, An Empirical Study of Admissions in SEC settlements, 60 Ariz. L. Rev. 1 (2018).

June 6, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, May 26, 2018

Call for Papers: AALS Section on Business Association - New Voices in Business Law

Call for Papers

AALS Section on Business Association

New Voices in Business Law

January 2-6, 2019, AALS Annual Meeting

The AALS Section on Business Associations is pleased to announce a “New Voices in Business Law” program during the 2019 AALS Annual Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana. This works-in-progress program will bring together junior and senior scholars in the field of business law for the purpose of providing junior scholars with feedback and guidance on their draft articles.

FORMAT:  Scholars whose papers are selected will provide a brief overview of their paper, and participants will then break into simultaneous round tables dedicated to the individual papers.  Two senior scholars will provide commentary and lead the discussion about each paper.

SUBMISSION PROCEDURE:  Junior scholars who are interested in participating in the program should send a draft or summary of at least five pages to Professor Jessica M. Erickson at jerickso@richmond.edu on or before August 10, 2018.  The cover email should state the junior scholar’s institution, tenure status, number of years in his or her current position, whether the paper has been accepted for publication, and, if not, when the scholar anticipates submitting the article to law reviews.  The subject line of the email should read: “Submission—Business Associations WIP Program.”

Junior scholars whose papers are selected for the program will need to submit a draft to the senior scholar commentators by December 14, 2018.

ELIGIBILITY:  Junior scholars at AALS member law schools are eligible to submit papers.  “Junior scholars” includes untenured faculty who have been teaching full-time at a law school for ten or fewer years.  The Committee will give priority to papers that have not yet been accepted for publication or submitted to law reviews. 

Pursuant to AALS rules, faculty at fee-paid non-member law schools, foreign faculty, adjunct and visiting faculty (without a full-time position at an AALS member law school), graduate students, fellows, and non-law school faculty are not eligible to submit.  Please note that all presenters at the program are responsible for paying their own annual meeting registration fees and travel expenses.  

May 26, 2018 in Judicial Opinions | Permalink | Comments (0)

New Securities Law Articles in Print

The following law review article relating to securities regulation is now available in paper format:

Kelsey Bolin, Note, Decentralized Public Ledger Systems and Securities Law: New Applications of Blockchain Technology and the Revitalization of Sections 11 and 12(A)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, 95 Wash. U. L. Rev. 955 (2018).

Donald Clarke & Fang Lu, The Law of China's Local Government Debt: Local Government Financing Vehicles and Their Bonds, 65 Am. J. Comp. L. 751 (2017).

Ryan Lewis, Comment, What Happens in Delaware Need Not Stay In Delaware: How Trulia Can Strengthen Private Enforcement of the Federal Securities Laws, 2017 BYU L. Rev. 715.

Micah J. Long, Note, Reasonable Approximation and Proximate Cause: How the Disgorgement Elements Are Bound Together, 12 Liberty U. L. Rev. 1 (2017).

Edmund Mokhtarian & Alexander Lindgren, Rise of the Crypto Hedge Fund: Operational Issues and Best Practices for an Emergent Investment Industry, 23 Stan. J.L. Bus. & Fin. 112 (2018).

Shivaram Rajgopal & Roger M. White, Stock Trades of Securities and Exchange Commission Employees, 60 J.L. & Econ. 441 (2017).

Kory Steen, Note, Vacating an Arbitration Award in Federal Court: The Jurisdictional Issues of the "Look Through" Approach and Arbitrators Violating Securities SRO Regulations, 94 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 459 (2017).

May 26, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, April 26, 2018

New Securities Law Articles in Print

The following law review article relating to securities regulation is now available in paper format:

Shawn Grant, Caution, Curves Ahead: Does the Future Signal Changes for Whistleblowers?, 42 Seton Hall Legis. J. 1 (2017).

Joseph D. Heinz, Comment, Spoofing: Ineffective Regulation Increases Market Inefficiency, 67 DePaul L. Rev. 77 (2017).

Andrew P. Van Osselaer, Note, Insider Trading Enforcement & Link Prediction, 96 Tex. L. Rev. 399 (2017).

April 26, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, April 19, 2018

Winship on Insider Trading

 Verity Winship has posted Disgorgement in Insider Trading Cases: FY2005-FY2015 on SSRN with the following abstract:

For about 50 years – at least since Texas Gulf Sulphur – the SEC has ordered defendants to disgorge their profits from transactions that violated the securities laws. Despite disgorgement’s long history, in its 2017 opinion in Kokesh v. SEC, the US Supreme Court put two aspects of the remedy on the table. It applied a five-year statute of limitations to disgorgement. It also reopened old questions about agencies’ power to seek remedies not specified in statute. This article provides data to inform these debates over the agency’s use of disgorgement and the effects of Kokesh. It reports the results of an empirical study of ten years of the remedies ordered by the SEC in insider trading actions, with particular emphasis on the agency’s reliance on disgorgement. It finds widespread reliance on disgorgement, but also identifies aspects of its use that may limit Kokesh’s effects in this area.

April 19, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

New Securities Law Article in Print

The following law review article relating to securities regulation is now available in paper format:

Jayme Herschkopf, Morality and Securities Fraud, 101 Marq. L. Rev. 453 (2017).

April 19, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, April 9, 2018

New Securities Law Articles in Print

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

Jill E. Fisch, Jonah B. Gelbach & Jonathan Klick, The Logic and Limits of Event Studies in Securities Fraud Litigation, 96 Tex. L. Rev. 553 (2018).

Andrew Verstein, Insider Tainting: Strategic Tipping of Material Nonpublic Information, 112 Nw. U. L. Rev. 725 (2018).

 

April 9, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)