Teaching Corporations was a bit frustrating on Tuesday.

I want my class to internalize the importance of a statute: in practice I remember turning to the D.G.C.L. at least twice a day, but I never really got the importance of the code as a student. The bookstore was late ordering the statutory supplement, but it had finally come in and on Friday I'd told my students that they'd need it for the next assignment. My grand plan for Tuesday's class was for them to flip through code provisions, get confused, and ultimately figure out for themselves how the statutory jigsaw puzzle fit together. Learning by doing, and getting down and dirty with a statute: what better use of class time, right?

Except that it dawned on me 10 minutes into class that most of the 91 students didn't have their statutory supplements with them. I shifted gears eventually into using the document camera to display the code on a projection screen up front, but felt like whole exercise was diluted. I was the one flipping pages, not the students.

Next time I'll tell the class more clearly that they'll need to bring their supplements to class. And I suppose it was a teachable moment for the ones that didn't: you'll need this or you'll be lost.

My father says class is always a bit off the day after a long weekend. Sigh.

Permalink | | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Finally, this is my first week back--apparently a bit behind some other schools.  But given the discussions about the classroom environment in general and lap-top use in particular, I thought I would ask some students here about their reactions to these issues.  Here are some of their observations:

1. When schools do not have a particular policy about lap-top use, Professors end up sending mixed messages to students about the impact of that use on classroom discussion and behavior as some Professors adopt a strict policy against such use and others welcome and even encourage such use.  Of course, Professors' teaching styles differ, and hence this dichotomy with respect to lap-top use may be no different.  Nevertheless, students expressed frustration with the competing views and policies on this issue.
2. A good number of students actually appear to find it very distracting to have their fellow students using their lap-tops to do things like play cards or surf the net during class room discussions, particularly when such students are called on and either can't engage in classroom discussion or take considerable time scrolling through their lap-top trying to pick up the thread of conversation.  This appears to confirm the supposition of those who believe that having lap-tops in the classroom detracts from the entire classroom environment.
3. Having said that, most students seemed to oppose a strict ban on lap-top use, either on the theory that students should have the freedom to make their own choices about lap-top use or on the theory that, to the extent a lap-top ban is aimed at preventing student inattention, such inattention could occur even if a student did not have a lap-top, but was instead, for example, doodling on the page or simply day-dreaming.
4. One of the more interesting comments was one students' suggestion that law schools may actually reward inattention (and hence potentially penalize those who pay attention), because of the single exam at the end of semester, which increases the possiblity that if students tunes out until the end of the semester, they can nevertheless do well or better than those students who paid attention or actively participated in class either because of a good outline or because the inattentive student happens to be a good test taker.  To be sure, there may be ways to ameliorate this possibility (and it could be that it is overstated), but this seemed to be a real concern for some students.

Ultimately, while we certainly did not generate any resolutions on the topic, students seemed pleased that Professors were actively trying to think through these issues and their impact on the classroom enviornment.  And that was at least a good way to start the semester.

Permalink | Law Schools/Lawyering | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

We've all heard about how the retirement of the baby boomers will strain Social Security and Medicare. Law firms will have to deal with significant increases in partner attrition. And, law schools might have to deal with professor attrition...a promising thought for young academics. But with dilemma comes opportunity, and this demographic shift also stands to enrich the industries that serve this demographic.

This got me thinking about the effects of the baby boom generation as consumers of legal services. There are a few easy ones, like Trust and Estates Planning; I would imagine that many of us wait until we near retirement to deal with this issue. Or, unfortunately, as baby boomers pass away a significant proportion of estates will be the subject of litigation among the recipients. (as a side note, and owing to the pecularities of equity jurisdiction, when I was clerking in Delaware Chancery my Judge had, between blockbuster merger cases, an estate case over a decedent who provided for her cat's care in her will...a neighbor claimed to be the beneficiary and submitted a claim for over fifty thousand to care for the kittens over their lifetime).

But the effects stretch more broadly. The baby boomers seem to be undersaving. This means that financial planning professionals will find new work, as well as those who represent them. Then again, perhaps a lot of baby boomers will decide to delay their retirement, making age discrimination a ripe area. Torts concerning eldercare might see an increase. Securities Fraud aimed at Seniors has been an issue for the SEC, perhaps we'll see it work its way into securities class actions. For instance, this report from the SEC says that though seniors currently make up 15% of the population, they account for 30% of all fraud victims. Med-mal will likely see growth, as seniors spend the most on medical services. Also, patent law might see biotech continue to grow more quickly than other sub-specialities due to shifts in demand for innovation toward discoveries benefiting those nearest the end of their life. I also wonder whether the demographic pressures of the baby boomers has fueled institutional investor interest in alternative investment strategies, such as activist hedge funds, to help fund benefit demands. That's about all I can think of, how many have I missed?

One wonders whether this will also translate into an increased focus on these issues in scholarship. Then again, scholarship doesn't necessarily track business trends, witness the disproportional focus on constitutional law in scholarship relative to the proportion of lawyers who actually practice con law. Anyone have any other thoughts?

Permalink | | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

I have not posted anything this week.  This is because for the past three days I can only think about one thing, and I don't want to post about it.  Gordon and I began this blog almost four years ago, right after the 2004 presidential election.  From the beginning, we have shied away from politics.  (According to Dave Hoffman, this is for the best.)  Of course, sometimes we just can't help it.  Of course, this week, I have been thinking about Sarah Palin.  I'm been concerned with the political aspects of it -- is there any talent there?  experience?  judgment?  These debates are everywhere, and pretty much people see what they want to see.  But this summer, Palin's story is a cautionary tale that has woken me up.

I have certain things in common with Palin -- I, too, am a hockey mom.  I have more kids than the national average, and I, too, have done my job with newborns.  My sister's child has Down Syndrome.  I also have a daughter, and this is where my thoughts have gone.  My daughter is 9 and in the 5th grade.  This summer, I have wrestled within myself what to tell her -- you know, "the talk."  If she were 9 and in the 3rd grade, I'd blow it off, and if she were 11 and in the 5th grade, I'd forge ahead, but instead I was conflicted.  I think I have been moved from my comfort zone now by news of Bristol Palin's pregnancy.

I'm going to say it -- teenage pregnancy is bad.  Not "wrong," not "morally wrong," but bad.  Teenagers are designed to have sex, specifically to have babies.  This is nature's way of making sure there are enough people.  And babies aren't bad -- babies are wonderful.  I have 3 and usually wish I had a few more.  Unfortunately, evolution has not caught up with the fact that in our world, being superfertile at 35 would be better than being superfertile at 17.  In our world, both men and women have higher chances of economic success and personal satisfaction if they delay pregnancy, get an education, and begin their careers and married lives.  But nature still works to make sure that teenagers fulfill their role in the survival of the species.  That still doesn't make it desirable.  Teenage pregnancy should be avoided, for both individual concerns as well as public concerns.  High teenage pregnancy rates affect infant mortality rates as well as claims on our public resources.  Surely no one would disagree that society is better off when babies are born to mature adults in committed relationships who have planned for these babies.  And most teenagers aren't Jamie Lynn Spears, Bristol Palin or even Juno MacGuff.  Getting pregnant usually doesn't end up in a big family hug, media attention, or getting the guy in the end.  I'm glad the Palins are making the best of the situation, but let's not pretend that it's a good situation, an enviable situation, or a situation to be emulated.

It seems as if the media is basically saying that we cannot judge the Palins because there are two choices, not to have sex or to have babies, and we all know that teenagers have sex (see above).  But there are more choices than that.  We can (1) tell teenagers not to have sex; (2) tell teenagers not to have sex, but if they do, they should use birth control; or (3) tell teenagers who have had sex and lost at fertilization roullette to have an abortion.  For many and various reasons, #3 is not palatable to many people.  But #1 seems to have some flaws in the execution for many, but obviously not all, teenagers.  So why don't we focus on #2?  (I've read in various places that Palin has taken a stand against birth control, so possibly #2 was off the table for the Palin family -- so, I guess that's a different discussion.)  Well, I've decided that in my house, we're going the #2 route whenever that installment of "the talk" takes place.

Would I prefer that my daughter didn't have sex as a teenager?  (or ever?)  Of course.  Will I do everything I can to make sure that she isn't in a position where this is abundantly possible?  ("Hey, kids, why are the lights off in the basement?  Anybody want popcorn?")  Of course.  Will I try to educate my child on the religious as well as the health reasons to delay sexual activity?  Of course.  Do I think I have a 100% chance of success?  No.  Do I think that my child should have to face the lifelong consequences of my failure rate?  No. 

When my kids take their bicycles out, I tell them not to cross certain busy streets.  I tell them to be careful.  I tell them not to fall.  I tell them not to do tricks and to keep their hands on the handlebars.  If they never fall, they don't need a helmet.  But I know that there is a chance that some kid sometime is going to dare them to jump a curb, or cross a busy street.  Maybe sometime they'll forget to look both ways.  I don't want to be with them at the hospital saying, "You should have listened to me" to a comatose child.  Instead, I give them a helmet.  So, at least for me, I need to start having uncomfortable talks with my daughter so she'll have a figurative helmet, just in case.  (And no, I don't think I escape having the same talks with my sons, either.  As the say, it takes two to tango.)

Permalink | Politics | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

That is from Chapter 1 ("A Disquieting Suggestion") of Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue, which is this semester's book in the Faith and Intellect Seminar for faculty here at BYU. The hypothesis to which MacIntyre refers is this: "We possess ... simulcra of morality, we continue to use many of the key expressions. But we have -- very largely, if not entirely -- lost our comprehension, both theoretical and practical, of morality."

The book is over a quarter century old, but I expect this to be a lively seminar. This is my third book in three semesters at BYU, and I am surprised that more people don't take the opportunity to attend. We usually get about 15-20 people, and a number of them are not faculty. I guess we are all busy, and I know that many people are not interested in reading books selected by others, given that their own reading lists are bulging at the seams. Still, this is a nice opportunity to benefit from the insights of others around campus while having a romp through the history of moral philosophy.

Permalink | Books | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Ryan v. Lyondell generated a whole lot of consternation in the blogosphere (some of which is collected here), but in my view, the commentary was largely overblown in this case, as Vice Chancellor Noble clarified today in his letter opinion denying an interlocutory appeal by the defendants. (See the letter opinion here and Francis Pileggi's helpful summary here.)

Of course, the defendants could have saved themselves the trouble if they had read my post on the initial opinion. My post on their memorandum in support of this motion of interlocutory appeal further showed why they were barking up the wrong tree, and Vice Chancellor Noble wrote as much in today's opinion, repeatedly emphasizing that his initial opinion did not eviscerate Section 102(b)(7), nor did it signal the revival of a "liability crisis" like the one that followed Smith v. Van Gorkom. (Of course, even that historical curiosity is more complicated than just that.) The court contrasted this case with Van Gorkom as follows:

The directors in this instance walked into a potential liability trap with their eyes wide open: they knew the Company was “in play,” they knew what the proper discharge of their fiduciary obligations in connection with a sale of control demanded, and yet they appear, on the limited record before the Court, to have done nothing to prepare for a possible sale.

That's the central point of the new opinion: on the summary judgment record, the defendants "did nothing (or virtually nothing)" to fulfill their Revlon duties. Thus, "the directors may have consciously disregarded their known fiduciary obligations in a sale scenario." In other words, the defendants may have acted in "bad faith." Thus, the court wants to see a more developed record. That is all.

Permalink | Corporate Law, Delaware | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

The battles over proxy access have enjoyed an armistice of late, though the skirmishes have been quite heated. This is sure to pick up after the election is over. Let's explore why there has been little room for compromise. As I see it, the Business Roundtable is concerned about the potential for divisive directors, and the other groups are concerned about one of three things: i) maximization of long term shareholder wealth ii) short term wealth extraction, or iii) furtherance of special interest or corporate social responsibility goals by way of the corporate ballot. What goes unnoticed in this debate is the following: the heart of the proxy access issue is the plurality voting standard.

The plurality voting standard says that the highest number of votes wins, regardless of whether they obtain a majority of the vote. This prevents the possibility of a failed election. Proxy access under a plurality voting regime could allow special interest groups to get a seat or two on Boards. But the plurality voting standard is just a default rule. We could have an outright majority vote for contested elections (not to be confused with majority voting in uncontested elections, a separate issue). This would insure that any nominee would have to obtain the approval of the voting bloc of large institutional investors like TIAA-CREF or Fidelity that actively vote their shares, which would limit instances of goals ii or iii above.

But how, you might ask, can we prevent the prospect of a failed election if we use majority voting for contested elections? We would need to do runoffs, an expensive and time consuming process. For better or worse, I've got a plan. For more, check out Pandora's Ballot Box, or a Proxy with Moxie? Majority Voting, Corporate Ballot Access, and the Legend of Martin Lipton Re-Examined.. My thesis: why not change the ballot around a little to permit shareholders to rank their preferences in a contested election? Then, we could just use those preferences to determine what the results of a runoff would have been. Thus, if you can't impress Fidelity or TIAA-CREF and their like, your shareholder campaign is out of luck.

You might ask: How does a professor flying the Delaware flag get the right to argue in favor of the institutional investor community? Isn't it a little inconsistent, in light of conventional wisdom that Delaware is biased in favor of management? I encountered this reflex reaction on the job talk circuit as well. Read Blasius and its progeny, including Schnell, Stroud, and Liquid Audio. Delaware realizes that the business judgment rule is harsh, but the franchise is how it justifies the rule. As Chancellor Allen would say, "If you don't like it, kick the bums out." Thus Delaware is vigorous in ensuring that use of the right must be protected. Contorting the Williams Act to prevent meaningful participation by shareholders and confer an advantage upon management is an untoward federal intervention harmful to this balance. Let's hope neither side of this debate gets everything they want, and the eventual compromise is crafted with a proper view toward maximization of long term shareholder wealth.

Permalink | | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Check out Steven Davidoff's fall deals preview over at DealBook ... if that's the sort of thing you like, I think you'll like it.

DealBook, by the way, is figured by Felix Salmon to be the most valuable finance blog out there, largely because it is kind of an email listserv too.  Hope Steven negotiated for a piece of the upside when he went on board....

Permalink | M&A | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Start with what we were taught in grade school: lying is wrong. But the reality of contractual negotiations is a little more complicated. My thought is that some forms of deceit are accepted rules of the game, some are forbidden by law and/or social norms, but I don't completely understand how to justify the difference. And, though there is some interesting work in L&E about the efficiency limits of posturing in bargaining, especially regarding the effect of the discovery process in forcing efficient settlement, current law and business literature on negotiations seems to have left a gap in this area.

Consider an accepted practice, bluffing. Say I were honored one day by a visiting spot at Illinois with Christine, Vic, and Larry. And, against the odds, I get an offer to stay! But I miss my friends in DC, and decide not to take it. I get back, sit down with my Dean, we talk about my contract. He says: "What's it going to take to get you to stay?" I say, "Well, I don't know, Champaign is tempting, and the fighting Illini rock." Then I respond with a figure higher than the absolute minimum it would take to get me to stay. Or, turn the tables, I respond: "What's the maximum you are willing to offer?" The Dean responds with a figure lower than the maximum he would be willing to squeeze out of the budget for me. Is either response surprising? I think this is a practice most of us would engage in, in fact I claim we would be fools not to. It's an accepted rule of the game. But it is, without any doubt, DECEITFUL! (except the fact that the Illini do rock, within their conference).

Thinking about norms, my initial intuition is that misdirection about one's own personal need to bargain or willingness to pay is socially accepted, where outright deceit about the quality of the product one is selling is not. If I were to deceive about having received an offer from the other school, that's fraud and it becomes an issue, and the law reflects this social norm. The jurisprudence surrounding common law fraud, implied warranties, and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are not constructed to include all forms of deceit, but seem to deal with representations about the value of what is offered more so than representations regarding personal price boundaries for the deal.

Beyond norms and liability, the prospect of repeat play changes the equation of course. This is an interesting tenet of game theory, but I want to set that aside for a moment. Keeping the issue simply to one-time negotiations, why are some forms of deceit acceptable but some are not? Is it an efficiency question? Penalizing certain forms of deception enhances the integrity of the market, encouraging more commerce? An enforcement cost issue, we only go after some forms of deceit because they exhibit lower detection costs relative to the damage it could do? Or is it an equity issue, rooted in privacy rights? As in, you have no right to ask me how much I'm willing to pay/demand for what you're selling/buying. Or, an equity issue rooted in distributive justice? As in, I have the right as a consumer to use misdirection to gain some leverage in the bargain over the seller and conserve my scarce resources to provide for my family? And do your answers to these questions change if I go from being a buyer to being a seller, or being a party with low negotiating leverage to being one with high leverage?

And, if I have convinced you that there are some forms of deceit that are accepted in contractual negotiations, the next question becomes...what strategies will allow me to use this to my maximum advantage?

One easy recommendation is to point to an outside force that limits your own ability to bargain. When I purchased my used Volvo from the dealer (I admit I'm a walking cliche, I also recently picked up a wool jacket with patches and a pipe), I claimed to the Volvo car dealer that I had credit issues and I had to take a loan from my parents limited in amount. All untrue. (Ask yourself, as you read this, did you think I did wrong? If not, is it because my misdirection related to my privacy right regarding my own ability to pay, or the fact that Volvo pre-owned car dealers typically have a bargaining advantage, or some efficiency concern, or the cost of enforcing a disclosure mandate?) The result, I am proud to say...after three weeks of haggling...a 15% discount off the internet listed price.

If I admitted to the Dealer after the fact that I was deceptive about my personal budgetary constraints, I don't believe he would hold it against me. In fact, I imagine he would begrudgingly admire my gamesmanship. Even if he didn't, is there any judge in the world that would rule in his favor? And under what theory? And what still do not fully grasp, and the point of my post...WHY!

Permalink | Contracts | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

I am not sure how much you can tell from the first weekend of college football, other than the fact that Clemson and Pitt are overrated again. The Mountain West Conference has two, maybe three, teams that could be better than any teams in the ACC. The Big Ten? Hmm ... Big One plus a few respectable teams, but mostly a conference of mediocre programs. Is the Pac 10 better than the SEC? No, but USC may be the best in the land. Too bad UCLA couldn't pull out a win against Tennessee tonight ...

Steve Bainbridge ... that's CNN, if you were wondering.

Permalink | Sports | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

We've got good insights on the SEC and IFRS from commenter MDF here, and from Larry Cunningham over at Concurring Opinions. 

Permalink | Securities | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

Though it isn’t related to corporate law, in light of the hurricane I thought that I would share my Katrina experience today, and also why I am proud to be a Cajun. I am from Lafayette, LA, 90 miles from New Orleans, and during the week of Katrina I happened to be home for a short vacation before school started.

Hurricanes are a way of life for us. I’ve been through nearly two dozen. When I lived in New Orleans I rode out two of them for which no evacuation recommendation had been issued (note, I left during one in which the Mayor recommended evacuation, and I would have NEVER considered staying during one, like Gustav or Katrina, for which a mandatory evacuation was issued.)

At first, everything looked fine. By Tuesday morning, we thought that the worst was over. And then the levees broke to a torrent of disaster. No one could have expected what followed.

Lafayette opened up our basketball stadium, the Cajundome, as an evacuation shelter that within a few days would fill to nearly 10,000 people. I called up Steve, my oldest friend from home. We went by Wal-Mart to pick up all the pillows we could get our hands on and head down there.

As we walked into the Cajundome, we saw that there were a few hundred people spaced out in the arena, sleeping on the concrete. The Red Cross Coordinator was already overwhelmed. We asked her where to leave donations and she walked us to a storage room. I felt proud as I looked at these 20 feet high piles of clothes, pillows, and kids toys that had been dropped off at the drive-through donation window.

The coordinator asked:

“Are you good with people?”

Steve and I fancy ourselves future Louisiana politicians, so of course we said “Sure.”

“Then you can sit at the entrance and get the new evacuees situated.”

“But what do we do.”

“Show them to the floor, tell them pillows are on the way, and sign them up for the Red Cross list in case their relatives call. If anybody threatens you, call for the state trooper. Good Luck.” Then she frowned as she added, “By the way, my name is Katrina.”

Before we knew it, there we were for the next three days, trying to use a joke or a smile to keep spirits up as we welcomed new evacuees. Sometimes it worked, sometimes all we really had to offer was a hug. They came by bus, before that by boat (hundreds of weekend fishermen became heroes overnight) or by Coast Guard airlift. Some of them were literally taken from axe holes in their attics.

One woman told us about how, on the bus ride over, she received a call from her grandmother in her attic as water was coming up to her chin. I didn’t know quite what to say. People wanted to know how their relatives were, I barely believed the words coming out of my mouth as I would lie that “I'm sure they're fine.”

At the height of it, when we would go in to the main floor to bring pillows, we would need to be escorted by armed guard. But, eventually, the shock of these events mellowed, and everyone settled in. And now, we became the caretakers of 10,000 new residents who had nothing to do all day. I won't dwell on the negative challenges that followed, but the city got through it, and the evacuees all moved on to rebuild their lives with time.

But, I also have a fun story to share. On my last day there, I got together with some old friends who work at Halliburton, a crew of crusty old Cajun guys who frequently cook for oilfield workers. We borrowed some pots, burners, tents and such from their company and went down to the Cajundome. Everybody put up at the store, and the twenty of us cooked Jambalaya for 5,000 people. It was like tailgating another LSU game. We just cooked all day, drank beer, told jokes, and talked Louisiana politics. I fancy myself a Cajun chef, but a day with these guys and I realized that I haven't even been born yet. After half a case of beer, they were calculating cooking measurements in their head like accountants. We joked around while stirring meat with a canoe paddle, the zydeco music blaring. I'm glad they let me tag along.

It was a unique experience for everyone. We learned that Louisiana can depend on the generosity of neighbors, both close to home and around the country. And that made me feel proud to be Cajun.

Permalink | | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

In case you've been wondering where you should spend that last bit of your conference budget, we'd like to note that the American Association of Wine Economists hits attractive spots in the US and Europe every year.  They've got a name-brand president in Orly Ashenfelter, a board of heavy hitters and wine-region academics (one of whom calls the society "the definition of tenure"), a journal, and a terrible website.

Every industry presents some interesting case studies, I figure.  But I think lawyers, allegedly big institutionalists, haven't institutionalized societies to study sports, movies, cuisine, and so on the way that other social scientists have.  What are the implications for interdisciplinarity, I wonder?

Permalink | Economics | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark

XBRL is a fascinating development in financial reporting, and the SEC has done a fine job coordinating its implementation. This is a concept that one of the Glom's former contributors, Commissioner Troy Paredes (the newest Commissioner on the SEC)(hopefully there's a link between Glom blogging and regulatory appointments) wrote about previously here. For a good introduction to XBRL, see this report.

It is a method for reporting information that tags data, presenting a more sophisticated data set than a simple adobe text document. Context is imbedded into specific financial numbers by the underlying programming language, minimizing the need for subjective assessment and occasions of human error when analyzing financial statements. Comparison across industries, or ratio analysis within financial reports, becomes almost automatic by linking directly to the tags rather than having to enter the information from the financial statements by hand. Among other things, this will allow the algorithmic programs crafted by total return investors to work almost instantaneously. It will also, after the growing pains of its initial implementation, reduce the costs and time pressure of the financial reporting process itself.

If nothing else, XBRL will make young associates lives easier. I can remember logging tons of hours looking through financial statements to develop reports, on issues that turned up during depositions, which could have been instantaneously generated with XBRL. It will also probably make the auditors and SEC enforcement staff's lives easier as well. The IRS uses complex algorithms of the interaction of information from tax returns to determine the taxpayers most likely to yield a penalty upon audit, I'm sure that financial auditors and SEC staff could also use XBRL to do the same thing.

The implementation of XBRL is an issue for the financial accountants, but since securities law is in part the law of financial accounting, I would imagine we'll see it worked into case law. For instance, plaintiffs might claim that a particular tag is defined by an issuer in a misleading way to hide some aspect of their firm’s performance. No matter how exact you think you've got the definitions for the categories in XBRL, there will always be some exception, some idiosyncrasy of a particular company or industry, that will requirement judgment. To the extent that different categories subject to such judgment have divergent effects on the company's financial statements, we are sure to see securities class actions and SEC Enforcement actions claiming that XBRL classifications and/or implementation decisions violated 10b-5 or other disclosure rules.

Permalink | | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Bookmark