Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
SEC Whistleblower Short Sellers
Recently, criticism has been leveled against the practice of the SEC awarding bounties to short sellers who potentially financially benefit twice from blowing the whistle and reporting violations of the federal securities laws to the SEC under its whistleblower program. Under this "double dip" scenario, short sellers profit not only from successfully covering their short positions on the company they have bet against, but also from receiving anywhere between 10% to 30% of the financial payments made by that same company to the SEC on a judgment entered against it of at least $1 million.
The position that short sellers should be denied the benefits of their critically important whistleblowing efforts is short-sighted and contrary to the notions of our capitalistic markets. Moreover, it will serve only to disincentive a vital constituency of the SEC Whistleblower Program, which, in turn, will degrade the effectiveness of the SEC's enforcement program.
Short sellers conduct their analysis of suspect companies from the "outside" through the review and dissection of publicly available information, including company's financial statements, SEC filings, industry trends and engaging in sophisticated market analyses. Unlike traditional "insiders" who have personal knowledge and, in some cases, documentary evidence of the illegal securities conduct, short sellers must invest substantial time, due diligence, human resources and financial capital in uncovering and identifying red flags that strongly suggest that publicly traded companies are engaged in ongoing federal securities laws violations. Quite often, short sellers are successful in uncovering massive accounting frauds and stock manipulations, the bread and butter of the SEC's enforcement program.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.