Commentary: Professor Arthur Pinto on the Need to Reform Federal Insider Trading Law
The following commentary from Professor Pinto comes in response to the recent well-publicized federal court case United States v Newman, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the insider trading convictions of two portfolio managers who allegedly profited by receiving confidential information through tips. Professor Pinto argues that current insider trading laws are murky at best and merit revisiting.
Professor Arthur Pinto Quoted in The Wall Street Journal
In a Letter to the Editor of The Wall Street Journal published Nov. 23, 2014, Professor Arthur Pinto responded to the Nov. 14 op-ed “Delaware Flirts With Encouraging Shareholder Lawsuits.” Professor Pinto disagrees with Rickard’s assessments that the Delaware legislature should not interfere with a corporation’s ability to amend its bylaws to shift attorney fees to the plaintiffs if they lose the litigation in shareholder suits.
Politics & Government Week Publishes Article by Professor Pinto
Politics & Government Week/VerticalNews.com reported on a recent article written by Professor Arthur Pinto, which was prepared for the 18th International Congress of Comparative Law that was held in Washington, D.C. in July 2010. The article, “An Overview of United States Corporate Governance in Publicly Traded Corporations” was recently published in the American Journal of Comparative Law, at the University of California School of Law. “It is an overview of the legal rules and mechanisms designed to protect shareholders and allow managers to effectively run publicly traded corporations in the United States. The particular influences of the focus of corporate governance, federalism (particularly the role of financial scandals), and types of shareholder ownership are discussed,” said Pinto.
Professor Pinto Writes Letter to Editor of Wall Street Journal
Professor Arthur Pinto wrote a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal in response to Russell G. Ryan's op-ed "The SEC vs. CEO Pay." In it, he disagrees with Ryan's argument that it is unfair and unlawful for the SEC to demand back the high salaries of the heads of major companies.