• Here's Bainbridge on the SEC's suit against Illinois: "Why do I call this a stunt? No fine. No relief for the affected bondholders. No benefits for Illinois pensioners, although I grant that that's largely beyond the SEC's jurisdiction. And no additional changes beyond what Illinois has already done."
• Ben Walsh is right, this dodgy hedge fund manager is "hilariously ostentatious."  And no master criminal, either - he got really rich doing things that were really obviously fraudulent.  At the very least the SEC can catch those guys.  
• The NY soda ban injunction isn't really business law, but it is a good illustration of the arbitrary and capricious standard's downside, which can undo compromised, but potentially promising regulation, which in turn might be a byword for your average SEC rulemaking.  As the New York judge observed:  
  • The simple reading of the Rule leads to ... uneven enforcement even within a particular City block, much less the City as a whole...The loopholes in this Rule effective defeat the stated purpose of the Rule.  It is arbitrary and capricious because it applies to some but not all food establishments in the city, it excludes other beverages that have significantly higher concentrations of sugar sweeteners and/or calories on suspect grounds, and the loopholes inherent in the Rule, including but not limited to no limitations on refills, defeat and/or serve to gut the purpose of the Rule.

Administrative Law, Securities, White Collar Crime | Bookmark

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e2017c3798689d970b

Links to weblogs that reference Three Different Lawsuits: