Posts tagged as:

Securities and Exchange Commission

March 20 roundup

by Walter Olson on March 20, 2012

  • “Lawyer Who Spotted Broker Fraud Rewarded With SEC Ordeal” [Business Week via Bader]
  • Reactions to the feds’ antitrust case against e-book publishers and Apple [Yglesias, Wright, Stoll, more]
  • NYT retrospectively backs Nixon efforts to deny tax exemption to lefty groups, or maybe ire at tea party adversaries just makes the paper less than consistent [Caron, background, more]
  • House Judiciary testimony on the evils of consent decrees binding the government to pursue regulation in certain ways [Andrew Grossman]
  • “Law Firm Claims It Had No Control Over $464 Mln Fee Request” [WSJ Law Blog]
  • “California’s ethnic identity police” [Mickey Kaus]
  • Role, economic incentives of special masters in litigation overdue for reformist attention [Ted/PoL]

{ 3 comments }

DealBreaker and Prof. Bainbridge try to clarify what the proposed ban would do, and address fears that it would criminalize stock trading by persons not employed by Congress who learn of impending legislative developments. Related: Jim Copland.

They’re coming up within the next few days, but Prof. Bainbridge warns that the draft legislation circulating from the office of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is “bizarre” and “toothless.” Earlier here, here, etc.

More: Gillibrand’s office says the weakness of the proposal was due to an inadvertent drafting error and that it will be given teeth. C-SPAN covers the hearing, the SEC and Sen. Scott Brown make their views known, Todd Henderson and Larry Ribstein take a contrarian position, and Prof. Bainbridge covers the scholarly testimony.

{ 1 comment }

Thanks to the sensational revelations from Hoover’s Peter Schweizer on 60 Minutes and elsewhere, the public is now aware of the uncanny investment success that members of the U.S. Congress enjoy when they personally bet on the stocks of companies with business in the capital. But is it lawful for them to be trading on inside information? I take up that question in my new Cato at Liberty post. More: Bainbridge, Stoll, @AndrewBreitbart.

{ 5 comments }

“Tulane Study Says SEC Estimate of Cost of Conflict Mineral Rules is 100x Too Low” — headline at Business Law Prof (via Prof. Bainbridge), describing a new calculation that the implementation of the complication Dodd-Frank provision will in fact cost American business upwards of $7 billion, not the $70 million the Securities and Exchange Commission optimistically foresaw. (Typo fixed now.) Earlier here, here (“devastating” effect on Congolese).

{ 16 comments }

It might require — not that! — relaxing securities regulation. [Amy Cortese, New York Times]

David Aronson, New York Times:

The “Loi Obama” or Obama Law — as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform act of 2010 has become known in the [central African] region — includes an obscure provision that requires public companies to indicate what measures they are taking to ensure that minerals in their supply chain don’t benefit warlords in conflict-ravaged Congo. The provision came about in no small part because of the work of high-profile advocacy groups like the Enough Project and Global Witness, which have been working for an end to what they call “conflict minerals.”

Unfortunately, the Dodd-Frank law has had unintended and devastating consequences, as I saw firsthand on a trip to eastern Congo this summer. …

{ 6 comments }

July 26 roundup

by Walter Olson on July 26, 2011

  • Murder victim’s family sues Schwarzenegger for commuting sentence [KTXL]
  • Easter egg in Dodd-Frank: Lawmaker’s pet “conflict minerals” proposal, to be enforced by SEC [Protess] More on costs to automakers and others: WLF, Carter Wood, more. Further: Bader.
  • Push is on again for fashion design copyright protection [NYT, earlier] Another skeptical view of bill [Katy Tasker, Public Knowledge]
  • Charges dropped against woman who videotaped cops from her front yard [Rochester D&C]
  • “Mom Charged with ‘Child Endangerment’ When Tot Wanders Off” [Free-Range Kids]
  • Live off the land? Better not try that in rural L.A. County [Cavanaugh]
  • Does the U.S. maintain diplomatic relations with this strange realm of “Gould, Arkansas”? [Volokh, Underhill/Forbes]

{ 4 comments }

June 8 roundup

by Walter Olson on June 8, 2011

  • Law firm settles with employee who said required high heels led to back injury [ABA Journal]
  • Stock listings fleeing U.S. for overseas, legal environment a factor [Ribstein, TotM]
  • Partial solution to above? Ted Frank places a stock bet on the Wal-Mart case [PoL, more]
  • Wider press coverage of hospital drug shortage [AP, Reuters, my March post]
  • Trial judge up north supports certifying as class action unusual suit blaming Newfoundland for moose collisions [Canadian Press via Karlsgodt, earlier here and here]
  • Academic revolt against copyright overreach [Chron of Higher Ed]
  • Sues deceased grandmother over trampoline injury [Madison County Record]

{ 3 comments }

That could be the result of the new institution of elaborate compliance system mandates that could prove to be beyond the capacity of fledgling start-ups, per Marc Hodak:

So, the government decided it had to increase regulations [on] the one part of the financial services sector -– hedge funds –- that had nothing to do with the financial crisis. And because the government felt compelled to spend gobs of taxpayer cash to bail out financial institution[s] that were too big to fail, Congress created a raft of regulations whose main effect will be to crush entrepreneurship and compel waves of consolidation. And the people who pushed for this regulation, who inadvertently insisted that the fixed costs of doing business in America are not yet high enough, will be shocked to find that only the big survive.

{ 1 comment }

Marc Hodak traces the consequences of legal dysfunction for successful start-ups hoping to unlock value for their contributing talents.

“Do we really want to exclude Americans from investing in high-flying American companies?” [Larry Ribstein, Truth on the Market]

{ 2 comments }

January 21 roundup

by Walter Olson on January 21, 2011

November 26 roundup

by Walter Olson on November 26, 2010

  • Reason TV interviews Richard Epstein;
  • On the SEC’s big new “insider trading” sweep [Ribstein, Bainbridge, Lambert, Salmon, more Ribstein]
  • Losing = winning? Ambitious claim for fees in environmental case [California Civil Justice, scroll]
  • “Unintended consequences department: canceled flights” [Ted at PoL] And check out Ted’s new TSA Abuse Blog, on one of the hottest issues of the moment. More on that from Popehat and Simple Justice;
  • H.R. 1408, the Inclusive Home Design Act, would compel handicap accessibility in private home design, yet another dreadful idea from Rep. Jan Schakowsky of CPSIA fame [AmendTheCPSIA]
  • “This place would be a shoplifter’s paradise (and a liability insurance abuser’s motherlode) in the United States, but we were in Japan, where they don’t seem to worry as much about that kind of thing.” [Mark Frauenfelder, BoingBoing, on the Showa Kan museum of everyday midcentury life in Takayama]
  • UK: “I moved out for decorators and squatters took over my house” [Evening Standard]
  • From the ruins of Pompeii, a reflection on government and disaster relief [Dum Spiro Spero]

{ 2 comments }

Could it be that cutting spreads of middlemen market-makers wasn’t a great way of advancing investors’ interests? “Maybe the government shouldn’t mess with markets unless it really understands how they function and the costs of regulation. Which it usually doesn’t.” [Larry Ribstein, Truth on the Market]

{ 1 comment }

Prof. Bainbridge pushes back against an Obama administration boon for shareholder activism, and detects “a political payoff by the Democrats in Congress and at the SEC for their buddies at union and state and local government pension funds.” More: comment letter to SEC (PDF) from John Endean of American Business Conference; Larry Ribstein.

July 30 roundup

by Walter Olson on July 30, 2010

  • Hilton Head dispute over pet turkeys leads to $4.25 million verdict [Island Packet via Lowering the Bar]
  • “Lucasfilm lightsaber legal threat letter sells for $3,850″ [BoingBoing, earlier]
  • Raw milk: “If The Government Says That It’s Not About Freedom, Then It’s Just NOT” [Ken at Popehat vs. L.A. Times]
  • Dell “failed to stress” accounting disclosure. SEC: that will be $100 million [TJIC]
  • Dodd-Frank dubbed “Lawyers’ and Consultants’ Full Employment Act of 2010″ [Mark Perry, WSJ Law Blog]
  • “Did liberal judges invent the standing doctrine? An Empirical Study of the Evolution of Standing, 1921-2006″ [Ho/Ross, Stanford Law Review]
  • Office of Connecticut AG Blumenthal doesn’t emerge with glory from fertility doctor case [Pesci]
  • Massachusetts high court tosses 125-year-old rule: owners now face wider liability for snow/ice hazards [Globe]

{ 2 comments }