MENU

Corporations, Securities & Antitrust

A Look Back, and a Look Forward: A Discussion with Three Former SEC Commissioners - Event Audio/Video

Sponsored by the Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group
Paul S. Atkins, Annette L. Nazareth, Troy A. Paredes, Jeffrey T. Dinwoodie, Dean A. Reuter June 14, 2016

Three former SEC Commissioners reflect on their tenures at the SEC and also provide their perspectives on several of today’s most important financial regulatory issues and questions.

This panel was sponsored by the Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group on June 1, 2016, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

Featuring:

  • Hon. Paul S. Atkins, Chief Executive, Patomak Global Partners, LLC (SEC Commissioner 2002-2008)
  • Hon. Annette L. Nazareth, Partner, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (SEC Commissioner 2005-2008)
  • Hon. Troy A. Paredes, Founder, Paredes Strategies LLC (SEC Commissioner 2008-2013)
  • Moderator: Jeffrey T. Dinwoodie, Associate, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
  • Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

National Press Club
Washington, DC

Capitalism and Inequality - Event Audio/Video

2016 National Student Symposium
Paul G. Mahoney, Dan McBride, Yaron Brook, Thomas B. Edsall, Jason Johnston, Steven Teles, Jerry E. Smith March 04, 2016

Free markets have exponentially improved the well-being of humanity and lifted more people out of poverty than any government program. But severe inequalities persist, and gaps have widened in the past thirty years. Is this a problem in and of itself? Or only to the extent it is caused by unfairly distorting the market with the help of government – so-called “crony capitalism" – as opposed to the inherently unique capabilities of each individual? How should the law be structured to ensure a level playing field?

This panel was presented at the 2016 National Student Symposium on Friday, February 26, 2016, at the University of Virginia School of Law.

Welcome and Opening Remarks
Caplin Auditorium

  • Dean Paul Mahoney, Dean, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, and Arnold H. Leon Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
  • Introduction: Mr. Dan McBride, President, University of Virginia School of Law Student Chapter

Panel I: Capitalism and Inequality
Caplin Auditorium

  • Dr. Yaron Brook, Executive Director, The Ayn Rand Institute
  • Prof. Thomas Edsall, Adjunct Professor of Journalism, Columbia Graduate School of Journalism
  • Prof. Jason Johnston, Henry L. and Grace Doherty Charitable Foundation Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
  • Prof. Steven Teles, Associate Professor of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University
  • Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

University of Virginia School of Law
Charlottesville, VA

Amgen Inc. v. Harris - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 2-24-16 featuring George Conway
George T. Conway III February 24, 2016

On January 25, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Amgen Inc v. Harris without oral argument. Former employees of an Amgen subsidiary had participated in a benefit plan that offered ownership of Amgen stock. When the value of Amgen stock fell in 2007, stockholders filed a class action against plan fiduciaries alleging a breach of fiduciary duties, including the duty of prudence, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit initially reversed a district court decision dismissing the class action complaint, the U.S. Supreme Court then vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case in light of the Supreme Court’s then-recent decision Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, which set forth the standards for stating a claim for breach of the duty of prudence against fiduciaries who manage employee stock ownership plans. 

On remand, the Ninth Circuit reiterated its conclusion that the plaintiffs’ complaint stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and the Supreme Court again granted certiorari. In a per curiam opinion the Court reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit by a vote of 9-0, holding that the Circuit had failed to properly evaluate the complaint. In its current form, the Supreme Court concluded, the complaint failed to state a claim for breach of the duty of prudence. In remanding the case, however, the Court indicated that the district court could decide in the first instance whether the stockholders might amend their complaint in order to adequately plead a claim for breach of the duty of prudence.

To discuss the case, we have George T. Conway III, who is Partner, Litigation at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.