Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Congress approves securities law reforms in an effort to streamline regulation, reduce regulatory burdens and promote capital formation for U.S. businesses

Article Abstract:

Congress passed the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 to deal with the double state and federal regulatory burden which increased the US business community's cost of capital without providing investors with adequate protection. Congress allocated to the SEC more regulatory activities national in scope while leaving to the states power to regulate securities matters just regional or local. The law also effected other reforms relating to mutual funds, broker-dealer, investment advisers and the SEC's own operations. Securities regulation should be modernized and streamlined as a result of this act.

Author: Phillips, Richard M., Miller, Gilbert C.
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1996
Venture capital, Working capital, states

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


An insurgent planning to initiate a proxy contest needs to assemble a team of advisers, develop a detailed understanding of the target and prepare a strategy

Article Abstract:

Insurgents planning proxy contests must develop a detailed understanding of the target company and assemble an experienced team including attorneys, proxy solicitors, investment bankers and public relations experts. These advisers can help formulate a strategy for the contest and develop a message for the shareholders, the financial community and other constituencies. Reviewing the target company's public documents and the material contracts on file with the SEC is essential preparation. Strategy once the proxy contest has been initiated is detailed.

Author: Baxley, C. William, Thompson, Mark W.
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1998
Corporate governance

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Proxy rules face some opposition

Article Abstract:

The SEC has proposed changes to its proxy rules that are intended to facilitate communication among stockholders, make proxy voting better informed and reduce compliance costs. It has been claimed that current restrictions on shareholder communications resulting from a wide interpretation of 'solicitation' may violate constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. However, since large blocks of stocks are owned by institutional and professional concerns, some claim that liberalized communication may allow formation of voting blocks.

Author: Feit, Norman
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1992

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States, Political aspects, Securities law, Laws, regulations and rules, Proxy
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Paper protection and broken promises: the Airline Deregulation Act's Employee Protection Program. Opening Coase's other black box: why workers submit to vertical integration into firms
  • Abstracts: House and Senate version of securities reform legislation, which differ on the safe harbor for predictions and the definition of 'scienter,' must be reconciled
  • Abstracts: Courts do not see eye to eye on scope of protection for product design after the patent expires. 'Bayer' highlights debate on research method use; patent won't cover fruit of offshore research not made with the method
  • Abstracts: Sober second thoughts: reflections on two decades of constitutional regulation of capital punishment. Rethinking the incorporation of the Establishment Clause: a federalist view
  • Abstracts: Court review of arbitration. Court review of arbitration: some practical observations. Judge Reinhardt's primer on labor arbitration: Stead Motors and public policy judicial review
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.