Regulation can be viewed as the Full-Time Employment Act for Lawyers. Some things are complicated both in their nature and the way change can morph in non-obvious ways and over unexpected time horizons.

So this is a conceptual change. Not to pitch Skadden, but it has the benefit of readability. View the article here.

From the Executive Summary

“The SEC has reversed a longstanding position and said that the existence of a mandatory arbitration clause in an issuer’s governing documents covering federal securities law claims will not affect the agency’s decision whether to accelerate the effectiveness of a registration statement. Instead, its staff will focus on the adequacy of the registration statement’s disclosures, including those regarding the mandatory arbitration provision.”

It suggests that the SEC would not be opposed to companies offering mandatory arbitration clauses in the offering of securities. Less lawyering, more public market capital formation is the concept, with a hint of less Federal, more state securities regulation – see Texas Stock Exchange. One can argue all day long what the real job of the SEC SHOULD be – and in these pages it has been arguing that that were doing terribly before and today they are just doing things terribly in a different fashion.

What struck us was this piece from insurance guy Ian, whom I find to be very thoughtful and readable.

If the stone tossed by the SEC that was focused on “IPO’s” becomes “why won’t anyone public anywhere just adopt it,” then things could change in dramatic places, insurance being one.

Lawsuits to follow.