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

Reincorporations from Delaware to Nevada and elsewhere remain in the news with the Delaware Supreme Court awaiting oral argument in the TripAdvisor case.  I’ve covered the issue here before and written about Nevada with our Secretary of State for the Wall Street Journal.  Nevada offers an alternative to Delaware and a different litigation environment.  In that op-ed, we framed the issue this way:

The likelihood of expensive, meritless or value-destroying litigation leads public companies in Delaware to avoid deals they would otherwise make. Another of the three public companies that recently decided to exit, Fidelity National Financial, explained in a shareholder letter that the state’s approach “may discourage pursuit of transactions the Board might otherwise believe to be in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders” because of litigation costs.

This issue looms particularly large for corporations with significant shareholders. Although Delaware law offers a process for companies to manage transactions with conflicts outside court, Delaware jurists themselves don’t always agree about how much information corporate boards must push out to shareholders to avoid litigation. When the process becomes too costly and cumbersome, deals don’t get done.

This brings me to the most recent reincorporation proxy…

The SEC’s ongoing sweep recently resolved potential claims against nine different SEC-registered investment advisory firms for violations of its Marketing Rule.   The firms paid civil penalties ranging from $60,000 to $325,000.  In total, the SEC secured about $1.2 million in civil penalties.

Marketing Rule enforcement sits in an interesting place after the Jarkesy decision.  The Marketing Rule is Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-1.  It’s codified at 17 C.F.R. 275.206(4)-1.  Section 206 of the Advisers Act is an anti-fraud provision.

Jarkesy would seemingly apply to give respondents the right to a jury trial and a federal court proceeding. Although addressing a different portion of the securities laws, the Jarkesy majority put it this way:

According to the SEC, these are actions under the “antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws” for “fraudulent conduct.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 72a–73a (opinion of the Commission). They provide civil penalties, a punitive remedy that we have recognized “could only be enforced in courts of law.” Tull, 481 U. S., at 422. And they target the same basic conduct as common law fraud, employ the same terms of art, and operate pursuant to similar legal principles. See supra, at 10–12. In short, this action

…

The Contest
The Public Investors Advocate Bar Association (PIABA) sponsors this contest for papers touching on securities law and securities arbitration and will pay over $3,000 in awards to law students with prizes at $1,500, $1,000, and $750 for the top three entrants.  The PIABA Bar Journal will publish the first place paper and, in years past, has also made offers to publish other papers from the contest.  Papers must be submitted by Friday, March 28, 2025.

Eligibility
The competition is open to all students attending a law school in the United States.[1]  PIABA employees and externs (except for students working less than 20 hours per week) are not eligible to enter the competition. 

Criteria and Judging
All entries will be judged anonymously by the Competition Judges, who will select the winning submission(s). PIABA will notify the award winner(s) in early April.

Entries will be judged based on the following criteria: quality of research and authority provided; accuracy and clarity of the analysis; compliance with legal writing standards and technical quality of writing, including organization, grammar, syntax, and form. Strong preference will be given to articles that advocate pro-investor positions, provide updates on or surveys of securities or…

The AALS Section on Transactional Law & Skills is pleased to announce a session at the 2025 AALS Annual Meeting in San Francisco, C.A.

Pedagogy Panel on Experiential Exercises in Business Law

We invite submissions for a panel that highlights experiential exercises in business law. Exercises might include, for example, contract drafting, transactional research, mock negotiations, or other exercises that would fit into a law school course. We invite speakers to share exercises with the panel, to discuss how they facilitate and/or grade the exercises, and/or to teach a short mock version of their exercise during the panel.

Please submit a short proposal and/or a draft of the exercise you would like to present to Professor Benjamin Edwards (Benjamin.Edwards@unlv.edu) on or before Friday, September 20th.  Authors should include their name and contact information in their submission email but remove all identifying information from their submission.  Please include the words “AALS – Transactional Pedagogy” in the subject line of your submission email. Papers will be selected after review by members of the Executive Committee of the Transactional Law & Skills Section. Presenters will be responsible for paying their registration fee, hotel, and travel expenses.

Please direct any questions

For decades, we’ve known that many arbitration awards in the FINRA arbitration forum go unpaid.  This happens because many brokerage firms collapse after liability for abusive sales practices comes home.  Last Friday, arbitrators rendered an award finding SW Financial liable for over $13 million in damages to a group of dozens of investors.  SW Financial was expelled by FINRA in 2023 for, among other things, making false statements to customers and failing to supervise its personnel.  

Congress has noticed the problem.  The Senate Committee on Appropriations recently found that “FINRA has failed to undertake steps to address unpaid arbitration awards by its members.”  It directed the SEC to “continue to engage with FIRNA to identify ways to reduce and eliminate the occurrence of unpaid awards.”  This comes after a 2018 bipartisan proposal to create a recovery pool failed to pass.

FINRA has tracked this issue for some time and keeps statistics on unpaid awards.  That an award goes unpaid, does not mean that every customer with an unpaid award recovers nothing.  FINRA explains it this way:

At times when an arbitration panel does award monetary damages to the claimant, the respondent may fail to pay the awarded damages. If

…

Yesterday, the Delaware Supreme Court released its decision in the Dell fee award appeal.  It’s available here.  The Dell case presents a question for blockbuster shareholder litigation–when the damages numbers in dispute grow particularly large, should courts apply a declining percentage when setting the attorneys’ fees?  (Disclosure, I joined an amicus brief on this issue at the trial level.)  The Dell plaintiffs secured a billion dollars in settlement.  Delaware’s Chancery Court opted to give the lawyers $267 million in fees.  

Ultimately, funds holding about 24% of the class objected to the fee award.  This is how the Delaware Supreme court stated their argument:

Pentwater argued that awarding a percentage of the settlement sought without considering the size of the settlement was unfair to the class. They contended that, in this case, the proposed fee was disproportionate to the value of the settlement. The objectors urged the court to apply a declining percentage to the fee award, which is similar to the approach used by federal courts in large federal securities law settlements. The declining percentage method reduces the percentage of the fee awarded to counsel as the size of the recovery increases. According to Pentwater, fee awards “are meant

…

Wendy Gerwick Couture has posted a thoughtful article entitled, Nevadaware Divergence in Corporate Law.  It’s available here.  She presents some new perspectives on Nevada corporate law and emphasizes that Nevada has adopted a different policy balance than Delaware. She does this through three thorough sections analyzing exculpation, appraisal, and freeze-out mergers under both Nevada and Delaware law.  

This detailed focus gives some real insights.  She recognizes that many of the claims about Nevada exculpating for breaches of the duty of loyalty are overstated.  Nevada exculpates for breach of fiduciary duty under a single standard.  To the extent that any breach of the duty of loyalty involves any intentional misconduct, it would not be exculpated under Nevada law. It’s a much narrower category–unintentional breaches of the duty of loyalty–that may be exculpated under Nevada law.

She also recognizes that burden of proof differences in exculpation may shift outcomes.  Delaware places the burden of proof on a party seeking exculpation.  Nevada places the burden of proof on the party aiming to impose monetary liability.  This difference undoubtedly shifts litigation costs for many disputes.

If you’re interested in TripAdvisor case or other comparative corporate law issues, her work helps bring real…

In an opinion released earlier today, Judge Kernodle of the Eastern District of Texas has stayed the rule from going into effect.  

Although I have not had time to sit and digest it at length, Chevron‘s demise plays a significant role.  Consider this passage:

In reviewing agency action under the APA, “[c]ourts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority” and should “set aside any [] action inconsistent with the law as they interpret it.” Loper Bright, 144 S. Ct. at 2261, 2273; see also Chamber, 885 F.3d at 369 (“A regulator’s authority is constrained by the authority that Congress delegated it by statute.”). A court should no longer defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute but should decide for itself “whether the law means what the agency says.” Loper Bright, 144 S. Ct. at 2261 (overruling Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)).

The Court thus owes no deference to DOL’s interpretation of ERISA, but rather “begins with the text” of the statute—as all courts do. E.g., Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 638 (2016); United States v. Lauderdale Cnty., 914 F.3d 960,

…

Andrew Jennings recently created a free tool to generate email alerts for SEC EDGAR filings.  It’s available here.  It’s a nifty website that doesn’t require any login or registration.  You just set up an alert and it’ll send you an email to confirm and manage the alert.  You can even let other people subscribe to your alert if you’re working with a team.

This is pretty useful if you’re tracking a sector and want to get filings sent to you or if you want to monitor all filings of a particular type–say cybersecurity incident 8-Ks.  The alert tool is probably highly useful for in-house counsel to keep tabs on other companies in their sector.