Two of the recent reports of blue ribbon groups looking at the competitiveness of U.S. capital markets recommended among other things that the SEC should consider permitting public companies to amend their charters to provide for arbitration of securities claims. According to an April 16, 2007 Wall Street Journal article entitled, “SEC Explores Opening Door
Another Call to Eliminate Private Securities Lawsuits
Amidst the current clamor over the competitiveness of the U.S. financial markets, a recurring theme has been the burden on the financial markets of U.S. litigiousness. One variant of this theme that has gotten air time is the idea that private securities lawsuits should be eliminated. The most prominent proponent of this idea is Stanford
U.S. Chamber Commission Reports on Capital Markets Competitiveness, Recommends Securities Reform
On March 12, 2007, in the latest in the apparently never-ending series of big thick reports on the competitiveness of U.S capital markets, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released the Report and Recommendations of its Commission on the Regulation of the U.S. Capital Markets in the 21st Century (here). An Executive Summary of
Apple, The Big Apple, and “Pay to Play” Plaintiffs’ Lawyers
In a series of recent editorials, the New York Sun has raised some interesting and troubling questions about a New York City’s pension fund’s involvement as lead plaintff in the Apple Computer options backdating securities litigation.
The first Sun editorial on the topic, entitled "New York Versus Apple "appeared on January 25, 2007 (here
AIM Reforms Rules for Companies
The would-be reformers who propose restructuring the U.S securities regulation regime cite the loss of U.S. IPO market share to overseas markets, particularly London’s Alternative Investment Market (AIM), as justification for regulatory reform. But as The D & O Diary has previously noted (most recently here and here), these overseas markets, especially the AIM,
Foreign IPO Activity in U.S Remains “Healthy”
Regular readers know that I have previously questioned (most recently here) the case for regulatory reform. Among the grounds the reformers routinely cite as the basis for regulatory reform is the U.S.’s loss of global IPO marketshare. A February 20, 2007 Wall Street Journal article entitled "Do Tough Rules Deter Foreign IPO Listing in
Changing Circumstances in the Global Financial Marketplace
In a recent post (here), I noted that the cross-border Siemens bribery investigation shows that regulators throughout the world increasingly recognize the importance of vigilance and scrutiny, and that the extent of alleged misconduct in that case could spur further efforts for oversight and reform. In that same vein, a February 15, 2007
The Weak Case for Regulatory Reform Gets Even Weaker
At the heart of recent calls for regulatory reform in the Interim Report of the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation and in the Bloomberg/Schumer Report is the assertion that the U.S. securities markets are losing global IPO marketshare because of supposed regulatory overkill and the litigious environment in the U.S. Accompanying this assertion is the
Global Forces Undercut Case for Regulatory Reforms
In prior posts (here, here and here), I argue that the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation (popularly known as the Paulson Committee) made a "weak case" in its Interim Report for regulatory reform. Virtually all of my points apply equally to the recently released Bloomberg/Schumer report as well. The themes I sounded
The Bloomberg/Schumer Report on U.S. Capital Market Competitiveness
On Monday January 22, 2007, Republican New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Democratic New York Senator Charles Schumer released the joint report they commissioned from McKinsey & Company, entitled "Sustaining New York’s and the U.S.’s Global Financial Services Leadership." The report can be found here, and the joint press release describing the