Securities Law Prof Blog

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

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

New in Print

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

Robert B. Ahdieh, Notes from the Border: Writing Across the Administrative Law/Financial Regulation Divide, 66 J. Legal Educ. 64 (2016).

Dan Awrey, The Mechanisms of Derivatives Market Efficiency, 91 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1104 (2016).

Ronald J. Colombo, Tipping the Scales Against Insider Trading: Adopting a Presumption of Personal Benefit to Clarify Dirks, 45 Hofstra L. Rev. 117 (2016).

James D. Cox, et al., Quieting the Shareholders' Voice: Empirical Evidence of Pervasive Bundling in Proxy Solicitations, 89 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1175 (2016).

Brittany Fritsch, Comment, Broken Windows Is a Broken Policy, 47 U. Tol. L. Rev. 767 (2016).

Anna Gelpern & Erik F. Gerding, Inside Safe Assets, 33 Yale J. on Reg. 363 (2016).

Joseph A. Grundfest, Fair or Foul?: SEC Administrative Proceedings and Prospects for Reform through Removal Legislation, 85 Fordham L. Rev. 1143 (2016).

Sarah C. Haan, Shareholder Proposal Settlements and the Private Ordering of Private Elections, 126 Yale L.J. 262 (2016).

Jeffrey L. Harrison, Other Markets, Other Costs: Modernizing Antitrust, 27 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 373 (2016).

Justin Jennewine, Casenote, What's Mine Is Yours: The Circuit Split Over Collective Corporate Knowledge in Securities Fraud Litigation, 84 U. Cin. L. Rev. 847 (2016).

Jonathan Lee, Note, Whistle with a Purpose: Extending Coverage Under SOX to Employees Discharging Their Duties, 93 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1613 (2016).

Biagio Marino, Note, Show Me the Money: The CEO Pay Ratio Disclosure Rule and the Quest for Effective Executive Compensation Reform, 85 Fordham L. Rev. 1355 (2016).

Salvatore Massa, Outside a Black Box: Court and Regulatory Review of Investment Valuations of Hard-to-Value Securities, 8 Wm. & Mary Bus. L. Rev. 1 (2016).

Jennifer M. Pacella, Conflicted Counselors: Retaliation Protections for Attorney-Whistleblowers in an Inconsistent Regulatory Regime, 33 Yale J. on Reg. 491 (2016).

Matthew G. Sipe, Patents v. Antitrust: Preempting Conflict, 66 Am. U. L. Rev. 415 (2016).

Shannon Seiferth, Note, No More Quid Pro Quo: Abandoning the Personal Benefit Requirement in Insider Trading Law, 50 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 175 (2016).

Julie St. John, Comment, Slowing Down High-Speed Trading: Why the SEC Should Allow a New Exchange a Chance to Compete, 19 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 207 (2016).

March 28, 2017 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Call for Participants: Proposed AALS Discussion Group - A New Era for Business Regulation?

Proposed Discussion Group

A New Era for Business Regulation?

Joan MacLeod Heminway, The University of Tennessee College of Law

Anne Tucker, Georgia State University College of Law

2018 AALS Annual Meeting

San Diego, CA

January 3-6, 2018

This is a call for participants in a proposed discussion group on “A New Era for Business Regulation?” at the 2018 Association of American Law Schools (“AALS”) Annual Meeting. 

In January 2017, the president signed an Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. The order uses budgeting powers to constrict agencies and the regulatory process by requiring the elimination of two existing regulations for each new regulation adopted.  The order also mandates that “the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, to be finalized this year shall be no greater than zero.” While the executive order does not cover independent agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, agencies that crafted many of the rules required by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, these agencies and their regulatory agendas will likely be the subject of future reform.  The co-organizers of this proposal are looking for full-time faculty of AALS member or fee-paid schools to engage in a discussion at the AALS annual meeting about changes in the business regulatory environment and assess the consequences—good and bad—of regulatory reform affecting businesses.  We invite participants from diverse legal backgrounds including, but not limited to, financial regulation, securities regulation, administrative law, business finance and governance, and related fields.  If there is sufficient interest in this topic, the co-organizers will submit a proposal for this discussion group to the AALS before the April 13, 2017 deadline. 

To indicate your interest in participating, please send an email expressing your interest by April 10th to either Joan MacLeod Heminway, The University of Tennessee College of Law, at [email protected] or Anne Tucker, Georgia State University College of Law, [email protected]. In the subject line of your email, please include “AALS Business Regulation Discussion Group” and your last name.  In the text of your email, please provide your name, contact information, and a one-paragraph summary of your interest in the topic, stating how it connects to your current or future research or teaching interests.  

If the discussion group proposal is accepted by AALS, the co-organizers may conduct a call for additional proposals before notifying the final faculty members selected to participate. Participants will not be expected to have a formal paper, but will be asked to contribute a written treatment (5-10 pages) prior to the annual meeting.

March 28, 2017 | Permalink | Comments (0)