Photo of Benjamin P. Edwards

Benjamin P. Edwards

Subscribe to Benjamin P. Edwards's Posts

Benjamin Edwards joined the faculty of the William S. Boyd School of Law in 2017. He researches and writes about business and securities law, corporate governance, arbitration, and consumer protection.

Prior to teaching, Professor Edwards practiced as a securities litigator in the New York office of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. At Skadden, he represented clients in complex civil litigation, including securities class actions arising out of the Madoff Ponzi scheme and litigation arising out of the 2008 financial crisis. Read More

David Lourie has a new paper out considering what standard the SEC should use when deciding whether to impose personal liability on Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs) for compliance failures at their firms.

The SEC now requires financial services firms to have CCOs. Exactly when they do or should face personal liability appears unclear. One SEC Staff member told CCOs that they would face personal liability in three circumstances: (1) when the CCO is affirmatively involved in misconduct; (2)
when the CCO engages in efforts to obstruct or mislead the SEC; or (3) when
the CCO exhibits “a wholesale failure to carry out his or her responsibilities.” What does “wholesale failure” mean here? It’s not totally clear. In the past, the SEC has sought to impose personal liability on CCOs for compliance failures and proceeded under a negligence standard–exposing a CCO to liability if they negligently performed their duties.

Figuring out when you should and shouldn’t hold CCOs personally liable is challenging. I’ll confess that my initial instinct is to lean toward personal liability so that someone at these financial services firms will take compliance seriously. Lourie makes a compelling case that putting too much liability on CCOs may turn them…

The Lowell Milken Institute for Business Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law is pleased to announce its first annual Business and Tax Roundtable for Upcoming Professors (“BATRUP”). This in-person Roundtable will take place at UCLA from Friday evening June 13th through Sunday June 15th.  The program will feature commentary by invited senior scholars as well as an opportunity to meet fellow aspiring scholars while enjoying Los Angeles.  We warmly invite scholars preparing for the academic job market to participate.

Roundtable Purpose and Eligibility
The Roundtable is designed to offer mentorship and feedback to aspiring legal scholars who plan to pursue tenure-track positions at law schools. It is open to scholars who hold a JD, master’s degree, or PhD, who have not yet secured a tenure-track law faculty appointment, and who are not yet listed in this academic year’s Faculty Appointments Register. Selected authors must be able to attend the Roundtable in person at UCLA.

We welcome submissions on any topic within business law or tax law. Co-authored papers are eligible provided all authors meet the submission criteria. To ensure the Roundtable’s focus on evolving scholarship, we ask that submitted papers not be published or scheduled…

Hennion and Walsh, a FINRA member firm, has taken an unusually aggressive position, claiming that because it has procured expungements through the FINRA forum, members of the public cannot discuss the underlying conduct. A cease and desist letter sent to a law firm claims that the firm “posts information relating to Hennion and Walsh, Inc. and its’ [sic] employees which has been found to be false and has been ordered to be expunged.” The letter goes on to claim, without authority, that it’s “illegal to provide a false statement . . .of an individual’s character and/or reputation” and that unspecified “relevant records reflect the information you have posted for public consumption has been deemed to be false, was ordered to be expunged and that order has been confirmed in a court of competent jurisdiction.”

The letter doesn’t specify exactly what statements it wants removed, but I presume it’s blog posts or other things featuring news of past Hennion and Walsh settlements or complaints against Hennion and Walsh employees. These are all fairly typical things for a plaintiff-side firm to post. If one investor has filed or settled a claim against a particular broker, there may be other aggrieved…

Earlier this week, I spoke on a panel for the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee. The was the agenda. Although the video is not yet up and available publicly, I put the draft of my remarks up on SSRN.

Other panelists included:

If you’re interested in these issues, the panel may be worth listening to when the SEC makes it available.

One of the challenges with the discussion is how to zero in on what we mean by alternative investments. As conceived for the panel, the category includes the wide world of things beyond ordinary stocks, bonds, and public stock/bond mutual funds that may show up in a brokerage account.

This is an issue we’re going to have to navigate in the coming years. It’s not an easy one. There is a huge difference between the sorts of products issued by leading private equity firms and major institutional issuers and some of the other…

Yesterday, Judge Badalamenti denied Target’s motion to dismiss a securities fraud claim against it arising out of its decision to run a pride campaign. The securities fraud claim was brought by America First Legal and other firms. They issued the following statements after the decision:

Statement from Reed D. Rubinstein, America First Legal Senior Vice President:

“Today’s decision is a warning to publicly traded corporations’ boards and management: Our federal securities laws mandate fair and honest disclosure of the market risk created by management when it uses shareholder resources, including consumer goodwill, to advance idiosyncratic and extreme social or political preferences. The risk of ESG mandates and DEI initiatives, such as Target’s “Pride Month” that targeted young children, cannot be whitewashed with boilerplate language or ignored,” said Reed Rubinstein.

Statement from Jonathan Berry, Managing Partner of Boyden Gray PLLC:

“Today’s ruling is an important win for our clients; we look forward to continuing to litigate this case to obtain relief for our clients and hold Target accountable for their actions,” said Jonathan Berry.

The decision certainly sends a message to corporations about what to expect. Candidly, the decision surprised me. After the initial complaint in the matter, I expected…

In 2022, FINRA sanctioned one of its members, Alpine Securities Corporation, for violating FINRA’s private rules for member behavior and imposed a cease-and-desist order against Alpine. Alpine then sued in federal court, challenging FINRA’s constitutionality.

While that lawsuit was pending, FINRA concluded that Alpine had violated the cease-and-desist order and initiated an expedited proceeding to expel Alpine from membership in FINRA. Alpine then sought a preliminary injunction from the district court against the expedited proceeding, arguing that FINRA is unconstitutional because its expedited action against Alpine violates either the private nondelegation doctrine or the Appointments Clause. The district court denied the preliminary injunction.

We now reverse only to the extent the district court allowed FINRA to expel Alpine with no opportunity for SEC review. Alpine is entitled to that limited preliminary injunction because it has demonstrated that it faces irreparable harm if expelled from FINRA and the entire securities industry before the SEC reviews the merits of FINRA’s decision. Alpine has

…

Earlier this year, the SEC released a rule treating significant market participants as “dealers” or “government security dealers.” The fact sheet explains the rationale was to update existing rules to capture modern electronic trading activity. The rule would apply to businesses that are:

  • Regularly expressing trading interest that is at or near the best available prices on both sides of the market for the same security and that is communicated and represented in a way that makes it accessible to other market participants; or
  • Earning revenue primarily from capturing bid-ask spreads, by buying at the bid and selling at the offer, or from capturing any incentives offered by trading venues to liquidity supplying trading interest.

At the time, I didn’t see the rule as particularly controversial. Market-makers have long been regulated. As trading technology changed, market participants began acting like market-makers without operating under the same regulatory standards. Firms subject to the rule would be required to register and possibly join an SRO if appropriate. The proposal generated a significant comment file and predictable litigation followed.

Two cases challenging the rule were filed in Texas. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor vacated the rule in both cases, one filed by the…

  • Administrative agencies may focus on repealing existing rules over crafting new ones to address problems.  We saw this with the last Trump Administration and I’d expect to see more of the same.
  • The Trump Administration will likely move to exert more political control over civil servants.  At the end of the last Trump Administration, President Trump issued an Executive Order aiming to exclude many more federal employees as outside the ordinary civil service rules. President Biden revoked it on taking office.  If reinstated, Schedule F would cover “[p]ositions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character not normally subject to change as a result of a Presidential transition[.]”   Essentially, the Trump Administration may seek to take political control over any federal employees involved in policy work.  This would cover a huge swath of federal employees.
  • The independence of the SEC will be tested.  There are two ways I can see this happening.  First, Chair Gensler could decline to resign and simply serve out his term.  President-elect Trump has promised to fire him.  But
…

24. Professors Paul Gompers, Joy Ishii, and Andrew Metrick also examined Professor Daines’ results as part of their study of 1,500 large firms to assess how firm governance affects stock returns. Consistent with the unique nature and heterogeneity of each company, they found that the premium observed in Professor Daines’ study was attributed to various governance characteristics, such as a classified board, limited ability to call special shareholders’ meetings, and state law and charter takeover protections. After controlling for these factors, they discovered that the Delaware premium was no longer statistically significant. In other words, Professors Gompers, Ishii, and

…