| Rulemaking by the Securities and Exchange Commission |
| |
| Federal agencies adopt rules to implement laws. Following the stock market crash in 1929, laws were passed to reform securities markets and to broaden the amount and accuracy of information to be made available to investors by issuers of securities. Those laws included the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Company Act of 1940. The more recently enacted Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 provided additional requirements for corporate governance and disclosure of information.More... |
| |
| Tracking or Targeted Stocks |
| |
| In addition to common stock, companies may issue what is known as tracking or targeted stock. For example, a large automaker that acquired a company in the computer industry issued a tracking stock that tracked the performance of the acquired company once it began operating as a division of the automaker. More... |
| |
| Actions for Discriminations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act |
| |
| Protection for CERCLA or Superfund Whistleblowers
More... |
| |
| Business Conduct Codes |
| |
| Business Conduct Codes for New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq Listed CompaniesMore... |
| |
| Sarbanes-Oxley Act |
| |
| Most states recognize that corporate directors and upper-level officers owe the corporation the duties of care, loyalty, and obedience. The duty to act in good faith has emerged in some jurisdictions as an equally important fiduciary duty imposed upon directors and officers. Historically, directors and officers were frequently exonerated of personal liability for business decisions because of courts' long-standing deference to the business decision under the business judgment rule or because the transaction was deemed fair to the corporation and its shareholders overall. In the wake of recent corporate scandals, however, officers and directors are under ever-increasing scrutiny by shareholders, the courts, state governments, and the federal government. Many corporate commentators bemoan the fact that conduct once protected under the business judgment rule may not be viewed with such deference in the future. More... |
| |
