Events & Announcements

2018 Symposium – Uproar: The Intersection of Animals and the Law

Feb. 9, 2018 - Uproar: The Intersection of Animals and the Law The Denver Law Review  presents its Volume 95 Symposium, Uproar: The Intersection of Animals and the Law. Uproar will explore the relationship between animal law and free speech.

This event is open to the public. Registration details to be announced.


Volume 95 Staff Announced

The Denver Law Review is excited to announce the Volume 95 Staff. Please join us in congratulating them in this accomplishment and supporting them in continuing the fine tradition of the Denver Law Review. Please click here to view the masthead.

Please click here to view the photo masthead.



 

Subscriptions and Submissions

For information on how to subscribe to the Denver Law Review, please click here.

For the guidelines on how to submit an article to the Denver Law Review, please click here.

DLR Online

The online supplement to the Denver Law Review

Tuesday
May232017

Proving Shareholder Eligibility Under Rule 14a-8(b)

[PDF]

Sophie Fritz

Rule 14a-8 requires management to include a properly submitted shareholder proposal in the company's proxy materials. The Rule, however, limits applicability to owners holding at least $2,000 in market value of the company's securities, or 1%, of the outstanding voting shares for at least one year through the date of the meeting. Beneficial owners must establish their eligibility by submitting a written statement from the record holder. The registrant has fourteen days to provide notification of any deficiency in the required proof and the owner has fourteen days to respond.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
May232017

The Untimely Problem of the Timely Submission of Shareholder Proposals

[PDF]

Ashley Kincaid Lloyd

Rule 14a-8 requires companies to include properly submitted shareholder proposals in their proxy materials. The Rule, however, imposes a number of substantive and procedural requirements. Subsection (e)(2) provides that, in most cases, shareholders must submit a proposal no later than 120 days before the date the company distributed the proxy statement to shareholders the prior year. Failure to do so can result in exclusion.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
May232017

The Lack of Adequate Time to Address Deficiencies Under Rule 14a-8(f)

[PDF]

John Ikard

Rule 14a-8 (the Rule) sought to facilitate "functional corporate democracy" between a company's management and shareholders. The Rule allows shareholders to include proposals in a company's proxy materials. Management can, however, exclude a proposal on a number of substantive and procedural grounds. Subsection (f) requires that companies provide proponents with notice of, and an opportunity to correct, certain procedural deficiencies. Issuers have fourteen days to issue the notice and shareholders have the same period to respond.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
May232017

Limiting the Limited Number of Shareholder Proposals under   Rule 14a-8

[PDF]

Renee Himes

Rule 14a-8 (the Rule) provides shareholders with the opportunity to advise corporate action through inclusion of proposals in a company's proxy statement. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) qualified the availability of the provision through a number of procedural thresholds for submission as well as substantive grounds for exclusion. These include a limit to a single submission per shareholder to each company.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
May232017

What’s in a Name: Rule 14a-8(l) and the Identification of Shareholder Proponents

[PDF]

Erin Stutz

Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 authorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to adopt proxy rules "necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors." Pursuant to this authority, the SEC in 1942 promulgated Rule 14a-8 in order to give shareholders a greater voice in the corporate governance process. Requiring the inclusion of shareholder proposals in a company's proxy statement, the rule also contains a number of procedural conditions and substantive limitations. Specifically, a shareholder may not submit more than one proposal to a single company and proposals cannot exceed 500 words.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
May232017

Excluding Proposals in the Absence of Corporate Authority

[PDF]

Donovan Gibbons

Rule 14a-8 requires inclusion of a properly submitted shareholder proposal in the company's proxy statement. The Rule, however, also includes thirteen substantive grounds for exclusion. Specifically, subsections (i)(6) permits omission of a proposal if "the company would lack the power or authority to implement the proposal."

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
May232017

Finding the Grievance in the Personal Grievance Exclusion

[PDF]

Jon Wagner

Rule 14a-8 (the Rule) requires the inclusion of a shareholder proposal in a company's proxy statement. The Rule, however, provides thirteen substantive grounds for exclusion. Subsection (i)(4) allows for the omission of proposals relating to the "redress of a personal claim or grievance against the company or any other person." Originally introduced to prevent "abuse of the [shareholder proposal] rule," the exclusion sought to eliminate proposals intending to "achieve personal ends . . . not necessarily in the common interest of . . . security holders generally."

Click to read more ...

Wednesday
Apr192017

Two Bills Demonstrate the Difficulty in Legislating Teen Sexting

[PDF]

Jennifer Eyl

In November 2016, Cañon City High School, in Cañon City, Colorado, was rocked by a scandal involving 300 sexually explicit images of students being shared among more than 100 teenagers. This case, and others around the country, have caused considerable consternation among prosecutors, school officials, parents, and those who want to ensure juveniles do not suffer criminal consequences for acting like teenagers in the age of easily created, shared and exploited digital images.

Click to read more ...

Wednesday
Apr052017

Will the Colorado Supreme Court Prevent a Potential Statewide Auto Insurance Crisis? The Impact of the Court of Appeals’ Decision in Fisher v. State Farm

[PDF]

Evan Stephenson & Shari L. Wall

On May 7, 2015, the Colorado Court of Appeals dramatically changed how auto insurers must pay benefits under uninsured and underinsured motorist (UIM) policies. In Fisher v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the court interpreted two general insurance-penalty statutes enacted in 2008 to require every UIM insurer statewide to operate effectively as a first-party health insurance operation.

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Mar302017

Symposium Note: Blank Check in the Criminal Justice System

[PDF]

Jenny Nelson

On Friday, February 3, 2017, at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, Professor Gabriel J. Chin, from the University of California Davis, spoke at the Denver Law Review Symposium on Justice Reinvestment. Prof. Chin incorporated an article he is currently writing for the Denver Law Review into his presentation titled, Blank Check in the Criminal Justice System. The presentation focused on the power sharing issue affecting players in the criminal justice system.

Click to read more ...