The Case against Mandatory Annual Director Elections and Shareholders\u27 Meetings

The article examines the mandatory requirement under state corporate law and stock exchange listing standards that public corporations hold annual shareholders’ meetings for the election of directors. Specifically, I question the value of requiring corporations to (1) elect directors annually, and (2) hold shareholders’ meetings annually. I critique the various justifications for these requirements and find none of them persuasive. I then explore a different approach taken by Minnesota with respect to the frequency of director elections and shareholders’ meetings and conclude that the approach is superior to the current scheme. Recognizing, however, that any less strict state approach is overridden by exchange listing standards requiring annual elections and meetings, I propose that these listing standards be abolished. This would give effect to the Minnesota approach, but more importantly, it would allow state “laboratories” to experiment with alternative rules with respect to the frequency of elections and meetings. Consequently, it would add another variable for consideration in connection with the various proposed corporate governance reforms (e.g., shareholder proxy access, proxy contest reimbursement, majority voting) under debate, some of which may impact the propriety of annual director elections and shareholders’ meetings

Carving A New Path to Equity Capital and Share Liquidity

This Article advocates regulatory reforms designed to carve a new path to equity capital and share liquidity for private companies. Specifically, the reforms would allow private companies to seek sophisticated investors through general solicitation and would foster the development of a liquid sophisticated- investors only ( SIO ) market for private company shares. The reforms are grounded in the fundamental principle of U.S. securities laws that sophisticated investors can lend for themselves and therefore require considerably fewer legal safeguards. As a result, the reforms would enhance capital formation by reducing regulatory burdens without compromising investor protection. The Article details the reforms and explains how they can be implemented under existing federal securities laws. It then considers the possibilities for new SIO markets if the reforms are adopted and theorizes about how the resulting securities regulatory void for SIO companies would be filled

Rebalancing Private Placement Regulation

Regulating securities offerings entails balancing investor protection and capital formation. Inevitably, this balance gets upset. As financial markets evolve, Congress passes new legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopts new rules, and the courts issue unanticipated opinions. These events upset the balance because they happen in an uncoordinated and haphazard manner and oftentimes produce unintended consequences.The Article proceeds as follows. To set the stage, Part II provides background on the Securities Act and describes the differences between public offerings and private placements. Part III explains why rebalancing private placement regulation may be warranted. Part IV offers proposed statutory language for a new civil liability provision in the Securities Act specifically for private placements. Part V concludes

The Intersection of Fee-Shifting Bylaws and Securities Fraud Litigation

This Article examines the intersection of fee-shifting bylaws and federal private securities fraud suits. Specifically, this Article hypothesizes about the effects fee-shifting bylaws would have, if enforceable, on private securities fraud litigation. It then turns to the validity of fee-shifting bylaws under federal law and concludes that they are invalid as applied to securities fraud claims. In light of this conclusion, this Article considers whether Congress should pass legislation to validate fee-shifting bylaws and determines that it should not

Tapping the Reservoir: Mutual Fund Litigation Under Section 36(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940

This is the published version