Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of how the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) of 1974, as amended , applies to securities professionals such as registered investment advisers, registered broker‐dealers and individual registered representatives and financial planners who advise, manage, or trade for investment portfolios of private employee benefit plans and individual retirement accounts.

The paper is designed as a primer to familiarize securities professionals with the terminology, scope and subject‐matter of ERISA as it applies to benefit plan investment transactions. When appropriate, the regulatory framework of ERISA is compared and contrasted with the more familiar securities law regulatory scheme.

The various Federal laws loosely known as “ERISA” significantly impact securities professionals in connection with the marketing of financial products and services to employee benefit plans, including IRAs, and it is critical that securities professionals have a general overview of how they do so.

The research set out is only a broad summary, and covers an area of law that is rapidly developing. It should not be considered a definitive summary of the law but a starting‐point for further, in‐depth inquiry.

Any financial professional seeking to develop or market financial products and services to benefit plans can use the paper to become familiar with the framework and terminology of ERISA.

This is a reprint of a paper first published in 2004, with extensive revisions to reflect sweeping changes in the law and new developments in the financial marketplace, plus an overview of “hot topics”.

The following is an overview of how the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), applies to securities professionals such as registered investment advisers (“RIAs”) and registered broker‐dealers who advise, manage, or trade for investment portfolios of employee benefit plans subject to ERISA. The principal focus of this outline is on securities registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”), and securities of investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. Many of these principles also will apply directly to unregistered securities, as well as to other investments offered by banks, insurance companies, commodity trading advisers and real estate advisers, though there may be some variation.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

While the popular image of the Sherman Act is that of a “trust-busting” statute, conduct remedies have been more common than structural relief. This paper evaluates the effect on economic welfare of conduct remedies that have resulted from ten prominent Sherman Act monopolization cases. In general, we find that in some cases the behavioral relief has had no consequence other than the cost of litigation and cost of compliance; in other cases, the remedies probably reduced consumer welfare. Cases studied are United Shoe Machinery, AT&T, Std. Oil of California, IBM, United Fruit, Kodak, Safeway, GM, Jerrold, and Blue Chip Stamp.

This article explores both procedural and substantive aspects of Securities Arbitration. Covering recent rule changes, the authors provide the practitioner with a guide for handling problems that may arise while thoroughly reviewing many aspects of arbitration practice. It is an examination of how procedure impacts substance.

A lack of access to information due to censorship still exists in today’s society, one example being within our prison facilities. In 2018, Big House Books (BHB), a nonprofit organization that sends free books by request to prisoners in Mississippi correctional facilities, filed a lawsuit against the Mississippi Department of Corrections and the South Mississippi Correctional Institution located near Leakesville, Mississippi, when the institution started returning books to BHB and requesting they only send religious books instead. Later that same year, the Human Rights Defense Center, a nonprofit organization working for criminal justice reform, filed a suit on behalf of prisoners of the Forrest County Jail located in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, stating that all books and periodicals other than the Bible and occasionally other Christian publications had been banned from the facility.

The current study is an in-depth case study of these two cases of censorship in southern Mississippi correctional facilities. Through a series of qualitative interviews with individuals connected to the cases, the study seeks to better understand the current phenomenon of censorship in prisons. Participants included prison employees, lawyers, and others involved in the two cases. Whether it be through services such as an actual library or information center provided by the prison facility, or the facility allowing books and other materials to be sent to inmates, incarcerated individuals have the right to access information. This study seeks to enlighten and act as a catalyst for change regarding censorship that is occurring within prisons today.

This article continues to assess the role of private nuisance as a common law tool for environmental protection, independent of the wider regulatory controls. It evaluates the decision in Cambridge Water and asks the question whether it would stand as good law before the Supreme Court. It concludes with illustrating the enduring role of the injunction in environmental protection and its capacity to coerce restorative environmental justice. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The paper is predominately a classic doctrinal article as it is principally library-based analysing both primary sources (that both pre- and post-date the modern law reporting system) and secondary sources whilst engaging in leading academic commentary.

Nuisance developed to a point in the nineteenth-century where a simple form of the tort was visible. At that juncture, it had an “unchanged” essence that emanated from a strict liability reciprocal identity. Recent judicial activity has visibly adulterated that identity: this article casts doubts on juridical restrictions that assess the conduct of defendants to assess liability. It is suggested that it may not withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court if, and when, they are tested. In light of that analysis and considering the potency of injunctions, it is argued that nuisance law potentially has a positive future in environmental protection.

Owing to the elected research approach, the scope of the article has been necessarily concentrated on succinct areas of a broader subject and viewed in a manner that works alongside the regulatory regime.

This paper recognises that nuisance law has a positive future in environmental protection especially if the courts are willing to embrace the historical paradigm which has served the common law in this field broadly well for hundreds of years.

To alert companies and individuals subject to regulation and investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of potential arguments to enforce time limits on enforcement actions that have heretofore commonly been ignored.

Analyzes two cases - one recently decided and one pending - in US Courts of Appeals, explains significance of issues at stake.

The Courts of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit has recently reviewed, and the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit will soon decide whether statutory timing provisions effectively remove SEC power to bring enforcement actions past their deadlines, at least in some circumstances.

Depending on the outcomes of the cases, companies and individuals may gain a new procedural defense or two against SEC enforcement actions. They may also expect the SEC to respond by more actively seeking tolling agreements, and/or being more cautious in issuing Wells notices.

Guidance based on pending decisions interpreting US securities law, may bring regulatory adjustments to agency practice and procedure.