David Felsenthal & Lily Chu: We do not believe that there is any simple, one size-fits-all remedy for regulation of cross-border swaps. We propose therefore that each transaction-level requirement be considered separately, and that specific rules be adopted for each type of transaction-level requirement.
Nathalie Martin: While the CFPB has been controversial with politicians, its approval rating is high among every-day Americans…
William K. Sjostrom, Jr.
An obscure provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) has received unprecedented attention in recent months because of the prominent role it appears to be playing in Facebook’s decision on going public. Specifically, Exchange Act Section 12(g)(1) requires any company with “total assets exceeding [$10,000,000] and a class of equity security . . . held of record by five hundred or more . . . persons” to register such security under the Exchange Act. The measurement date for these thresholds is the last day of a company’s fiscal year. It then has 120 days from that date to register. Today, the practical effect of this rule is to force certain types of firms into the public markets earlier than is desirable. A shift from a shareholder-based trigger to one based on trading volume would preserve the Rule’s underlying policy concerns while mitigating this unintended effect.
Elizabeth Pagel Serebransky, Michael P. Harrell, Jonathan F. Lewis and Charity Brunson Wyatt: While private equity professionals have been keenly aware in recent years of proposed changes to the U.S. tax code…
Harvey R. Miller and Maurice Horwitz
On October 19, 2010, the FDIC published a proposed rule governing the implementation of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”). Title II of Dodd-Frank creates an orderly liquidation authority for the resolution of systemically important financial institutions. According to the FDIC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Implementing Certain Orderly Liquidation Authority Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, “[t]he liquidation rules of Title II are designed to create parity in the treatment of creditors with the Bankruptcy Code and other normally applicable insolvency laws.”
Brian JM Quinn
Early in October of this year the Chancery Court handed down its opinion in In re Cogent, Inc. Shareholder Litigation. In many respects, the ruling was pedestrian. Shareholders of Cogent, a Delaware corporation in the business of providing automated fingerprint identification systems, challenged management’s decision to sell the corporation to the 3M Company for $10.50/share in cash. The essence of the shareholders’ challenge focused on supposed inadequacies in the sales process that, according to the plaintiffs, resulted in a breach of the directors’ Revlon obligations. The shareholders further alleged that deal protections and other provisions in the merger agreement were preclusive, arguing that such provisions made it unlikely that a potential bidder lurking on the edges of the transaction might come forward.
