SEC Enforcement Heuristics: An Empirical Inquiry

This Article examines the overlap between SEC securities enforcement actions and private securities fraud class actions. We begin with an overview of data concerning all SEC enforcement actions from 1997 to 2002. We find that the volume of SEC enforcement proceedings is relatively modest. We next examine the scope of the recently enacted Fair Fund provision that authorizes the SEC to designate civil penalties it recovers from defendants to benefit defrauded private investors. We conclude that this provision offers only limited potential relief for private investors. We complete this Part of the Article with an analysis of the serious resource limitations faced by the SEC. The second portion of the Article contains an empirical analysis of the determinants of SEC enforcement actions and the overlap of private fraud suits and SEC enforcement proceedings. Using bivariate analysis, we find that (1) private suits with parallel SEC actions settle for significantly more than private suits without such proceedings; (2) SEC enforcement actions target significantly smaller companies than private actions alone; (3) private cases with parallel SEC actions take substantially less time to settle than other private cases; and (4) private cases with parallel SEC actions have significantly longer class periods than other private actions. Finally, we create a model for estimating damages to compare settlement ratios in cases with parallel SEC actions to those in private actions. We find that one-fourth of all the private class action settlements occurring in suits that yield less than 10 percent of provable losses are settled for less than 2 percent of provable losses, but that there are no private actions with parallel SEC suits with such small settlements. In the final Part of the Article, we conduct a multivariate regression analysis of the determinants of when SEC enforcement actions are filed. We find that the most highly significant determinant of SEC actions is financial distress. Estimated losses do not appear to be a statistically significant factor in the SEC\u27s decision to file these suits

Indonesian Students' Social-emotional Competencies and Their English Academic Achievement

In Indonesian secondary schools, young learners might have some difficulties such as lack of motivation, lack of confidence and disengagement in learning English, which contribute to the level of their social-emotional competencies (SEC). This study was conducted to investigate the relations between 103 seventh graders' SEC and their English academic achievement. This study provided not only the correlation but also the results of the students' SEC, their English academic achievement, and the contribution of the students' SEC to their English academic achievement. The collected data from the SEC questionnaire and documentation were analyzed by using Pearson Correlation. The results highlighted that there was a significant weak correlation (r-obtained=0.367) between the students' SEC and their English academic achievement. Moreover, there was 12.6% contribution of the students' SEC to their English academic achievement. Therefore, it is possible that social-emotional competencies may enhance students' English academic performance

Saving Disgorgement from Itself: SEC Enforcement After Kokesh v. SEC

Disgorgement is under threat. In Kokesh v. SEC , the Supreme Court held that disgorgement—a routine remedy that allows the SEC to recoup ill-gotten gains from financial wrongdoers—is subject to a 5-year statute of limitations because it functions as a “penalty.” This ruling threatens to upend the traditional conception of disgorgement as an ancillary remedy granted by the court’s equity power, because there are no penalties at equity. With the possibility that Kokesh’s penalty reasoning could be adopted beyond the statute of limitations context, the future of disgorgement in federal court is in doubt. This Note proposes a way forward that allows for disgorgement’s continued viability. The SEC should moderate its use of disgorgement for three reasons: because of a trend of suspicion toward strong government enforcement power by the Supreme Court, because it has been improperly used punitively, and because the rise of other statutory schemes has displaced disgorgement’s original justification. At the same time, disgorgement should be saved because of the uncertain future of administrative disgorgement proceedings, the intuitive notion of recovering money from wrongdoers, and the much-needed ability to compensate victims. To save disgorgement, the SEC should limit its use only to restoring the status quo of injured investors, thereby ensuring a remedial—not penal—purpose

Saving Disgorgement from Itself: SEC Enforcement After Kokesh v. SEC

Disgorgement is under threat. In Kokesh v. SEC , the Supreme Court held that disgorgement—a routine remedy that allows the SEC to recoup ill-gotten gains from financial wrongdoers—is subject to a 5-year statute of limitations because it functions as a “penalty.” This ruling threatens to upend the traditional conception of disgorgement as an ancillary remedy granted by the court’s equity power, because there are no penalties at equity. With the possibility that Kokesh’s penalty reasoning could be adopted beyond the statute of limitations context, the future of disgorgement in federal court is in doubt. This Note proposes a way forward that allows for disgorgement’s continued viability. The SEC should moderate its use of disgorgement for three reasons: because of a trend of suspicion toward strong government enforcement power by the Supreme Court, because it has been improperly used punitively, and because the rise of other statutory schemes has displaced disgorgement’s original justification. At the same time, disgorgement should be saved because of the uncertain future of administrative disgorgement proceedings, the intuitive notion of recovering money from wrongdoers, and the much-needed ability to compensate victims. To save disgorgement, the SEC should limit its use only to restoring the status quo of injured investors, thereby ensuring a remedial—not penal—purpose

Changement grammatical et discursif en français multiculturel de la région parisienne : éléments de comparaison

Cet article cherche à comparer la variation et le changement dans deux domaines linguistiques, à savoir la grammaire et le discours. Il présente les résultats du projet « Multicultural London English – Multicultural Paris French » et s’interroge sur les différences dans l’usage des traits innovants et leur corrélation avec certaines catégories sociales. Du côté grammatical, la recherche se concentre en particulier sur l’usage des interrogatives indirectes in situ telles que 'je sais pas c’est qui' et 'je sais ça veut dire quoi', fréquemment utilisées à l’oral chez certains locuteurs. Du côté pragmatico-discursif, elle discute de l’utilisation des particules d’extension (et tout, et tout ça). L’étude révèle que la distribution des innovations discursives n’est pas la même que celle des innovations grammaticales, dont l’usage est davantage clivé en fonction des catégories sociales. L’article tente d’apporter des éclairages sur les processus de grammaticalisation et de changement, en s’interrogeant sur l’existence d’un français multiculturel typiquement « jeune » ou typiquement « parisien »

Behind Enemy Phone Lines: Insider Trading, Parallel Enforcement, and Sharing the Fruits of Wiretaps

Two key trends were present in the successful prosecution of Raj Rajaratnam and his coconspirators in one of the largest insider-trading conspiracies in history: the use of wiretaps to investigate and prosecute insider trading and a joint effort between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) to conduct the investigation. Despite the close working relationship between the DOJ and the SEC, the DOJ never disclosed the fruits of the wiretaps to the SEC, presumably due to its belief that Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (as amended, the “Wiretap Act”)—the comprehensive framework that authorizes the government to conduct wiretaps in certain circumstances—prohibited it from doing so. Though the Second Circuit in SEC v. Rajaratnam ultimately held that the SEC could obtain wiretap materials from the criminal defendants as part of civil discovery, the question of whether direct disclosure of the wiretap materials from the DOJ to the SEC is prohibited has been raised but not yet addressed. This Note analyzes previous cases addressing the construction of the Wiretap Act’s disclosure provisions and concludes that direct disclosure from the DOJ to the SEC is not prohibited by the Act. It further proposes a process by which civil enforcement agencies, such as the SEC, can request disclosure of wiretap materials through the DOJ in such a way that balances the benefits of disclosure against the privacy interests of the parties whose conversations were intercepted

Developing Consistency in Enamel Etching by CO\u3csub\u3e2\u3c/sub\u3e Laser

It has been reported that CO2 laser energy can be utilized to etch enamel. However, consistency of etching has been a significant problem. This research was designed to ascertain which exposure parameters result in consistent etching of enamel. Fourteen non.carious teeth were selected and a 2x4 gridwork was cut into the buccal surfaces creating eight discrete windows for laser exposures. Four teeth served for the initial pilot project. Two windows were lased at each combination of exposure parameters. Laser exposures were at .01, .02, .05, or .10 sec. at 2, 5, 10, or 15 Watts (W) with a model 20C Pfizer CO2 laser. A 1.0mm focal spot was used throughout. Following SEM examinations, it became clear that etching occurred only at .05 and .10 sec. at 10 and 15W. Ten teeth were used for the main project at .05 and .10 sec. exposures at 10 and 15W. Ten windows were lased for each combination of exposure parameters. SEM analysis was accomplished at 100X and 1,200X. 10/10 laser exposures at .05 sec./15W, .10 sec./10W and .10 sec./15W resulted in etched enamel. Statistical analysis showed a significant difference in etching between the .05 sec.10W group and the higher exposure parameters (p= .003). The results indicate that CO2 laser energy can consistently etch enamel at .10 sec. at 10 or 15W and at .05 sec. at 15W with a 1.0mm focal spot

Luminosity function of faint Galactic sources in the Chandra bulge field

We study the statistical properties of faint X-ray sources detected in the Chandra Bulge Field. The unprecedented sensitivity of the Chandra observations allows us to probe the population of faint Galactic X-ray sources down to luminosities L(2-10 keV)~1e30 erg/sec at the Galactic Center distance. We show that the luminosity function of these CBF sources agrees well with the luminosity function of sources in the Solar vicinity (Sazonov et al. 2006). The cumulative luminosity density of sources detected in the CBF in the luminosity range 1e30-1e32 erg/sec per unit stellar mass is L(2-10 keV)/M*=(1.7+/-0.3)e27 erg/sec/Msun. Taking into account sources in the luminosity range 1e32-1e34 erg/sec from Sazonov et al. (2006), the cumulative luminosity density in the broad luminosity range 1e30-1e34 erg/sec becomes L(2-10 keV)/M*=(2.4+/-0.4)e27 erg/sec/Msun. The majority of sources with the faintest luminosities should be active binary stars with hot coronae based on the available luminosity function of X-ray sources in the Solar environment.Comment: 5 pages, 4 figures, Accepted for publication in MNRA

Multiscale non-adiabatic dynamics with radiative decay, case study on the post-ionization fragmentation of rare-gas tetramers

In this supplementary material, we recollect, for reader's convenience, the general scheme of suggested multiscale model (Sec. 1), and basic informations about approaches used for pilot study: a detailed description of the interaction model (Sec. 2) and dynamical methods used for the dark dynamics step (Sec. 3) reported previously in two preceding studies [1, 2]. In addition, a detailed description of the treatment of radiative processes is also given (Sec. 4).Comment: supplementary material for parent paper; 9 pages, 1 figure; corrected formulae and misleading notation in Sec.4 (pages 7 and 8