Comments on: Sex Sells Contracts: Why Not Securities Law? http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/11/sex_sells_contr_1.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:22:46 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: Drop http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/11/sex_sells_contr_1.html/comment-page-1#comment-62188 Drop Thu, 02 Feb 2006 22:03:54 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2005/11/sex-sells-contracts-why-not-securities-law.html#comment-62188 Just checking to see if any relation are out here http://vhs-video.olddj.com Just checking to see if any relation are out here http://vhs-video.olddj.com

]]> By: Phill http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/11/sex_sells_contr_1.html/comment-page-1#comment-62187 Phill Sat, 28 Jan 2006 02:23:15 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2005/11/sex-sells-contracts-why-not-securities-law.html#comment-62187 Hi guys. Really neat. Nana will get a kick out of it when I show her. http://cheap-hydrocodone.gottaoh.com Hi guys. Really neat. Nana will get a kick out of it when I show her. http://cheap-hydrocodone.gottaoh.com

]]> By: Bill Sjostrom http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/11/sex_sells_contr_1.html/comment-page-1#comment-62186 Bill Sjostrom Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:14:16 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2005/11/sex-sells-contracts-why-not-securities-law.html#comment-62186 Interesting hypo. I agree that there probably is enough of a materiality argument to at least survive a motion for summary judgment. Hence, I think the lesson to take from the hypo is to avoid statements like cohesive, ethically sound, 100%, etc. in SEC filings. Absent these statements, I don't think the company would have any duty to disclose the affair. As an aside, no securities lawyer should ever let "100%" appear as a modifier in an SEC filing. Interesting hypo. I agree that there probably is enough of a materiality argument to at least survive a motion for summary judgment. Hence, I think the lesson to take from the hypo is to avoid statements like cohesive, ethically sound, 100%, etc. in SEC filings. Absent these statements, I don’t think the company would have any duty to disclose the affair. As an aside, no securities lawyer should ever let “100%” appear as a modifier in an SEC filing.

]]> By: anonymous http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/11/sex_sells_contr_1.html/comment-page-1#comment-62185 anonymous Sun, 13 Nov 2005 07:50:49 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2005/11/sex-sells-contracts-why-not-securities-law.html#comment-62185 Having worked for a publicly-held employer where the president/CEO was engaged in an adulterous relationship, I can tell you that the fiscal effect of dalliance goes beyond the immediate participants. Consider the Jack Welch case, where the retirement "package" of GE's former CEO became "assets" in an acrimonious divorce. In the case of my ex-employer, the itemization (demanded as part of the divorce proceedings) of "non-cash" services provided to "all officers and directors" threatened to sink the company's prospectus (this was pre- Sarb-Ox). A fast resignation saved the company's disclosures.<p> A CEO whose wife is not happy with his extra-marital prowess is a definite fiscal liability.</p> Having worked for a publicly-held employer where the president/CEO was engaged in an adulterous relationship, I can tell you that the fiscal effect of dalliance goes beyond the immediate participants. Consider the Jack Welch case, where the retirement “package” of GE’s former CEO became “assets” in an acrimonious divorce. In the case of my ex-employer, the itemization (demanded as part of the divorce proceedings) of “non-cash” services provided to “all officers and directors” threatened to sink the company’s prospectus (this was pre- Sarb-Ox). A fast resignation saved the company’s disclosures.

A CEO whose wife is not happy with his extra-marital prowess is a definite fiscal liability.

]]>