Category: Corporate

Volume 36: Fall 2016

March 12th, 2017 in Corporate, Financial Crisis, Legislative Developments, Real Estate, Regulatory Enforcement

INTRODUCTION

Introduction and Table of Contents

ISSUE I – FALL 2016

Development Articles Table of Contents

Kuhu Parasrampuria, SEC’s New Money Market Rules, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 2 (2016).

Daniel Mello, Anti-Inversion Rules, the Pfizer-Allergan Merger, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Challenge, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 16 (2016).

Alyssa Marchetti, Stricter Anti-Money Laundering Rules for Financial Institutions, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 30 (2016).

Roseanna Loring, Brexit: Economic Impact, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 40 (2016).

Julia Merton, Payday Lending and Its Regulation, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 52 (2016).

Matthew Zolnierz, Dual-Listed IPOs, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 65 (2016).

Harold Primm, Regulating the Blockchain Revolution: A Financial Industry Transformation, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 75 (2016).

Erica Santos, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac: Release from Conservatorship, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 92 (2016).

Danielle Simard, Developments in Internal Scrutiny of Data Security as Illustrated by Goldman Sachs’s Unauthorized Use of Confidential Supervisory Information, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 102 (2016).

Jennifer Villyard, New Department of Labor Final Fiduciary Rule’s Impact on the Securities Market, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 114 (2016).

Max Perricone, Circuit Split on the Interpretation of the Elements of Tipper/Tippee Liability in Insider Trading Cases, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 131 (2016).

Natalie Witter, Insider Trading and Newman Applied: Goldman Sachs, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 144 (2016).

Lauren Troeller, Bitcoin and Money Laundering, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 159 (2016).

Shaida Mirmazaheri, How FinTech Firms Provide a New Path to Regulatory Relief for Banks, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 175 (2016).

Jessica Park, CFTC Proposes Amendments to Registration Exemptions for Foreign Persons, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 195 (2016).

ARTICLES

Vincent M. Di Lorenzo, Corporate Wrongdoing: Interactions of Legal Mandates and Corporate Culture, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 207 (2016).

Wulf A. Kaal, Private Fund Investor Due Diligence: Evidence from 1995 to 2015, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 257 (2016).

Dr. Xiaoling Ang & Thomas J. Kearney, Building the CFPB’s Arbitration Archive: A Commentary on Design, Implementation, and Privacy, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 315 (2016).

NOTES

William Simpson, Note, Above Reproach: How the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Escapes Constitutional Checks & Balances, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 343 (2016).

Mark Lipschultz, Note, Merging the Public and Private: The LIHTC Program and A Formula for More Affordable Housing, 36 REV. BANKING & FIN. L. 379 (2016).

Facebook: Hope & Litigation

October 25th, 2012 in Corporate

On October 23, Facebook Inc. enjoyed its biggest single-day stock gain since its initial public offering.[1] The Wall Street Journal noted this surge came one day after Facebook announced strong revenue and promising progress from mobile ads.[2]

Facebook stock reached an intraday high of $24.25 and closed at $23.23. On October 22, Facebook stock languished at $19.50, 51.3% of its IPO price of $38.

The company report of its third quarter revenue increase topped analyst expectations. Importantly, sales of mobile ads contributed to 14% of revenue.[3] One year ago, sales of mobile ads did not contribute to revenue.[4] Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg says he believes in the strong opportunity of mobile products and mobile monetization.[5]

While there is excitement surrounding the mobile space, Facebook faces litigation—41 lawsuits from three different jurisdictions—over its unsuccessful IPO. Recently, on October 4, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation found in Facebook’s favor and granted a consolidation of the 41 cases in the Southern District of New York under Judge Robert W. Sweet.[6]

The Panel’s Transfer Order noted, “Thirty of these actions allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the 1933 Act) or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against movants and various underwriter defendants. Three of these actions assert derivative claims against certain of Facebook’s directors and officers in connection with alleged violations of the 1933 Act.”

Thomas Ajamie, managing partner at Ajamie LLP, said, “In many lawsuits of this type the cases are eventually dismissed by judges on legal grounds, and no damages are awarded. That still might happen here.”[7]

-Daniel Jeng

[1] Somini Sengupta, Facebook Posts Largest Single-Day Gain, N.Y. Times (Oct. 24, 2012).

[2] Matt Jarzemsky, Facebook Shares Nab Biggest Gain Since IPO on Earnings, Analyst Upgrades, Wall St. J. (Oct. 24, 2012), available athttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203897404578076463090723792.html.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] New Legal Review, How Facebook’s IPO spawned a network of litigation, available at http://www.cpaglobal.com/newlegalreview/5358/how_facebook_s_ipo_spawned_a_n.

[7] Id.