JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ENTREPRENEURSHIP & THE LAW
twitterfacebooklinkedinrss

Volume 10 – Issues 1 & 2

To Be a “Whistleblower,” or Not to Be a “Whistleblower? ” That Is the Question-Whether ‘Tis Nobler in the Mind of the Courts to Suffer for Reporting Wrongdoing to the SEC or Employers Internally: Examining the Recent Circuit Split Regarding the Definition of a Whistleblower Under Dodd-Frank

To Be a “Whistleblower,” or Not to Be a “Whistleblower? ” That Is the Question-Whether ‘Tis Nobler in the Mind of the Courts to Suffer for Reporting Wrongdoing to the SEC or Employers Internally: Examining the Recent Circuit Split Regarding the Definition of a Whistleblower Under Dodd-Frank

Under the current state of the law, the circuit courts are split over whether an employee must report corporate wrongdoing directly to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), or report wrongdoing to a company’s management in order to receive whistleblower protection under Dodd–Frank. The resolution of this circuit split not only will have implications for American employees caught in situations similar to the fiction above, but also will provide a prime opportunity for the Supreme…
read more →
Online Lenders Shouldn’t Get Mad Over Madden

Online Lenders Shouldn’t Get Mad Over Madden

The Second Circuit’s surprising decision in Madden v. Midland Funding caused consternation within the financial services industry. There, the Madden Court held that the National Bank Act’s pre-emption of state usury law did not apply to consumer debt sold by banks to third parties. Under the Second Circuit’s ruling, third-party buyers could not be certain of loan values, potentially making consumer finance markets less liquid. This decision immediately sparked concerns from the alternative finance industry,…
read more →
Regulating Moral Hazard: The True Risk of Dodd-Frank’s Risk Retention Requirement

Regulating Moral Hazard: The True Risk of Dodd-Frank’s Risk Retention Requirement

Dodd–Frank was implemented in response to the Great Recession as a means to curb abuses on Wall Street. The Act mandated broad reform of the financial system, and in particular, required regulators to promulgate rules controlling the complex structure of Asset-Backed Security (ABS). Dodd–Frank required securitizers to retain a portion of the credit risk associated with ABS. The goal was to curb moral hazard—the market failure commonly blamed for the Financial Crisis. However, there is…
read more →
The Legal Aspects of Portfolio Margining: A Move Toward the LSOC Model

The Legal Aspects of Portfolio Margining: A Move Toward the LSOC Model

This Article focuses on the legal aspects of “portfolio margining” in the United States and their potential for reducing costs and facilitating the management of collateral for the participants involved. First, this Article outlines the level of protection that customer “margin” deposits receive in clearing systems using a Central Counterparty (CCP). Second, it explains the process of portfolio margining from a legal perspective and discusses the benefits of adopting these arrangements. Thirdly, it argues that…
read more →
Clarifying the Original Clawback: Interpreting Sarbanes-Oxley Section 304 Through the Lens of Dodd-Frank Section 954

Clarifying the Original Clawback: Interpreting Sarbanes-Oxley Section 304 Through the Lens of Dodd-Frank Section 954

In the early 2000s, major accounting scandals involving reporting violations and audit failures sent the United States financial markets into turmoil. Congress and President George W. Bush reacted to the controversy by passing the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act, better known as the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX), in July of 2002. Section 304 created an explicit procedure, whereby the SEC could disgorge or clawback a CEO or CFO’s incentive-based compensation or stock gains…
read more →
  • 1
  • 2