U.S. regulation of public investment companies (such as mutual funds) is based on a notion that, from a governance perspective, investment companies are simply another type of business enterprise, not substantially different from companies that produce goods or provide (non-investment) services. In other words, investment company regulation is founded on what this Article calls a “corporate governance paradigm,” in that it provides a significant regulatory role for boards of directors, as the traditional governance mechanism in business enterprises, and is “entity-centric,” focusing on intra-entity relationships to the exclusion of super-entity ones. This Article argues that corporate governance norms, which came to dominate U.S. investment company regulation as a result of the unique history of U.S. investment companies, are poorly-suited to achieve the goals of investment company regulation. In particular, the corporate governance paradigm has given rise to a number of regulatory weaknesses, which stem from investment advisers’ effective control over investment company boards of directors and courts’ deference to state corporate law doctrine in addressing investors’ grievances. Accordingly, investment company regulation should acknowledge that investment companies are not merely another type of business enterprise with the same challenges and tensions arising from the separation of ownership and control that appear in the traditional corporate context. Toward that end, this Article contends that policymakers should view, and regulate, investment companies as an avenue through which investment advisers provide financial services (investment advisory services, in particular) to investors — and should view investment company shareholders more as advisory customers than as equity owners of a firm. This “financial services” model of regulation moves past the entity-focus of corporate governance norms and, therefore, permits dispensing with governance by an “independent” body such as the board of directors. More importantly, if adopted, this model would remedy some of the more significant problems plaguing U.S. investment company regulation.
This report summarizes the Washington and Colorado marijuana legalization laws and evaluates whether, or the extent to which, they may be preempted by the CSA or by international agreements. It also highlights potential responses to these recent legalization initiatives by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and identifies other noncriminal consequences that marijuana users may face under federal law. Finally, the report closes with a description of legislative proposals introduced in the 113th Congress relating to the treatment of marijuana under federal law . . . .Washington's Initiative 502 and Colorado's Amendment 64 have sparked interest and controversy. The CRS report is a non-partisan consideration of the legal issues.
 |
| Happy Mother's Day...now please cease and desist! |
 |
| Professor Collins |
 |
| Prison Cells |
Ever try to research old state statutes? Ever need to know
how the language changed over the years? Ever need a snapshot in time –
from a really long time ago?
Maybe the devil really does wear Prada...or at least works there. You might remember hearing about a discrimination lawsuit back in 2010 brought by a former Prada employee against her employer in Japanese court. The employee alleged being told by HR that her employer was ashamed of her ugliness, to lose weight and to change her hairstyle. The former Prada employee further alleged that Prada demoted and transferred 15 female employees, many of them top saleswomen, because they were "old, fat, ugly, disgusting, had bad teeth, bad bodies or did not have the Prada look.” Thirteen employees "were transferred to other locations, but most of them ended up quitting instead."
Despite its victory, Prada countersued its former employee "for harming the firm’s image." The former employee plans to "pitch the $780,000 countersuit as discrimination against employees." A panel from the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women will hold a hearing on the case later this month. The hefty media coverage since the lawsuit's inception has ranged from sympathetic to skeptical, where do you fall?
 |
| Victoria's Secret Love Spell |
