SEC

  • August 30, 2011
    Guest Post

    By Michael R. Siebecker, Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law


    Recently, a group of law professors petitioned the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) to adopt rules requiring corporations to disclose expenditures for political activities. The petition advances a variety of convincing yet fairly conservative arguments supporting both the need to adopt new political disclosure rules and the mechanisms for disseminating sufficient information. Although the petition adopts a properly dispassionate tone and focuses on pragmatic steps the SEC could easily take, the potential implications of a failure to adopt a political expenditure disclosure rule, or of a defeat of any new disclosure rule based on a First Amendment challenge, are much more striking than the petition conveys.

    First, the failure to require public corporations to disclose their political expenditures would exacerbate a tragedy of transparency that already threatens the collapse of the market for corporate social responsibility (CSR), where consumers and investors employ various political, social, environmental, or ethical screening criteria before purchasing a company’s stock or products. On a worldwide basis, owners or managers of assets exceeding $14 trillion make investment decisions based on one or more CSR criteria. 

    In an efficient market, fully informed consumers and investors could reward companies that engage in desired CSR practices by purchasing their products or stock, and, conversely, could punish companies that fail to engage in desired practices by refusing to purchase their products or stock. To the extent consumer and investor preferences for CSR provide compliant companies greater economic benefits (e.g., through higher consumer prices, stock premiums, or cheaper access to capital) than the cost of embracing CSR practices, an opportunity for true wealth creation exists that satisfies the preferences of consumers, investors, and corporate shareholders alike. That classic win-win opportunity quickly devolves into economic waste, however, if investors and consumers stop rewarding companies for engaging in socially responsible behavior. 

  • August 1, 2011

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Beyond fighting caps on bailed-out bankers’ salaries and pressuring Congress for a so-called tax holiday, allowing corporations to bring overseas profits back home at a significant tax-break, business interests are also feverishly working to undercut the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul bill that was enacted last year.

    The Wall Street Journalreports that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness is contemplating legal action against an Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule adopted in spring that encourages people to alert the SEC to corporate malfeasance, which could in turn “lead to penalties exceeding $1 million,” the newspaper’s Jean Eaglesham reports.

    The Future Industry Association, the WSJ, is also mulling over challenges to another provision of the Dodd-Frank bill that prohibits some “trading practices in commodities and other derivatives.”

    The WSJ and ABA Journal noted that a recent opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has prompted business interests to consider further challenges to Dodd-Frank. A three-judge panel of the appeals court last week invalidated an SEC rule intended to make “it easier for shareholders of publicly traded companies to nominate corporate directors,” The Blog of LegalTimes reported. The BLT continued, “The appeals court sided with the business groups’ lawyers, who argued that investors with special interests, including unions and state and local governments, would be likely to put the maximization of the shareholder value second to other interests.”

    A wide-ranging panel discussion at the ACS 10th Anniversary National Convention explored the future of securities litigation pursuant to Dodd-Frank. Video of that discussion is available here.

  • April 11, 2011

    Shareholders of Home Depot will likely have more influence in the company’s political expenditures, reports Ciara Torres-Spelliscy for the Brennan Center for Justice.

    Torres-Spelliscy notes a recent no-action letter from the SEC that she says “will enhance the ability of shareholders to have more of a voice when publicly-traded corporations spend money on politics.”

    The SEC letter was prompted after Home Depot “tried to keep a shareholder resolution on corporate political spending off of this year’s proxy statement,” Torres-Spelliscy wrote. “The SEC said the shareholders would get a chance to vote on the matter. This action provides shareholders with greater protections when corporations spend their money, in the form of general corporate funds, on politics.”

    The SEC’s action according to Torres-Spelliscy means that the shareholders have the opportunity on “company-by-company basis” to take action the planned political spending. “This is a big step,” she writes, “in the right direction for giving shareholders more protections after Citizens United allowed corporations the ability to spend other people’s money in politics.”

  • January 10, 2011
    A former N.Y. broker accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission of seriously mishandling a charity's brokerage accounts marks a "new low for con men everywhere," reports The Huffington Post.

    The recent SEC investigation resulted in forcing an end to the brokerage career of Paul George Chironis, who has also agreed to pay $350,000 to the Sisters of Charity, a "group of mostly elderly nuns in the Bronx." The SEC concluded that Chironis had manipulated the charity's brokerage accounts to maximize profits for himself.

    The Post reports:

    According to the SEC's order, Chironis defrauded the nuns from January 2007 to January 2008 by churning the two accounts with low-risk tolerance that held primarily mortgage-backed securities issued by Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, as well as certain closed-end bond funds. The order further found that Chironis charged the nuns' accounts excessive and undisclosed markups and markdowns in riskless principal transactions.

    George S. Canellos, director of the SEC's New York Regional Office, said in a statement, "Chironis's irresponsible actions virtually guaranteed the convent's accounts would lose money due to the undisclosed and excessive costs being incurred while Chironis focused on generating substantial commissions for himself."

  • May 6, 2010
    Guest Post

    By Lee Harris, Associate Professor of Law, University of Memphis, where he teaches coporate law. Prof. Harris' most recent article, "Shareholder Campaign Funds: A Campaign Subsidy Scheme for Corporate Elections," can be downloaded here.

    Goldman Sachs has a stellar reputation. Even Warren Buffet, who recently plucked down around $5 billion to purchase a piece of the firm, trusts Goldman.

    But, perhaps the Goldman magic is just that -- smoke, mirrors, a fancy outfit, a distractingly attractive assistant, a show built on illusion.

    Consider the Securities and Exchange Commission's recent lawsuit against Goldman and the impending threat of criminal action against the firm for some of its conduct in allegedly deceiving investors and perhaps even helping instigate the mortgage meltdown and current financial crises.

    With the lawsuit, Goldman joins the long list of other storied financial services companies that have been accused of misconduct recently, including AIG and Stanford Financial, among others.

    According to the SEC, Goldman allegedly helped create, hype, recommend, and ultimately sell investments in housing that was doomed to fail. They charge that Goldman and the employee who allegedly helped size and package the doomed investment, Fabrice Tourre, a French national, committed fraud by failing to disclose details regarding the investment. One e-mail apparently from a Goldman employee, not the Frenchman, described such investments as "sh***y".

    Excuse my French.