 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
 |
   |
 |
||||||||||
|
> Securities
& Banking > Antitrust |
AEP provides economic consulting services in cases involving securities laws and regulations as well as in litigation involving banks and financial institutions. In securities cases, AEP personnel have applied sophisticated economic theory, statistical methods, and economic models to analyze issues in securities fraud, insider trading, stock price manipulation, and damages. In addition, AEP is skilled in applying economic analysis to value all manner of securities. With respect to
litigation involving banks and financial institutions, AEP uses economic
analysis to assess the effects of fraud, mismanagement, and breach of
fiduciary duty. AEP also has significant experience in analyzing the
capital adequacy of financial institutions in light of their investment
strategies. |
|||||||||||
|
Representative Assignments: |
||||||||||||
|
Insider Trading |
AEP personnel were involved in a major insider trading case. An important issue was the stock prices of companies involved in mergers and acquisitions. AEP personnel directed an analysis of what factors affected the change in stock price in response to a merger or an acquisition. In addition, AEP personnel supervised event studies to determine if the stock price on certain key dates experienced inexplicable changes in price. |
|||||||||||
| |
|
|||||||||||
|
WPPSS
Bond Case
|
AEP personnel were involved in an analysis of expected returns for different securities. This analysis demonstrated a reasonable return that a WPPSS bond holder should have received. AEP personnel also discovered a fundamental error in the defendant's analysis. | |||||||||||
|
In
Re County of Orange
|
A group of cities alleged that Orange County and a brokerage house breached fiduciary duties by using the cities' funds for inappropriate investment strategies. The cities asked AEP to construct the conceptual basis for damages in their action against the brokerage house. | |||||||||||
| Investor v. Major Brokerage House | An investor went to a major brokerage house to sell stock in order to use the money for a start-up. The brokerage firm advised him not to sell the stock but to invest in sophisticated instruments that would provide returns but with little risk. The value of the investments fell dramatically, and the investor lost most of his money. As a result, he was required to seek outside investors for his start-up. AEP was asked to estimate damages. | |||||||||||
| American Savings Bank v. United States | The United States government had granted American Savings Bank ("ASB") special leniency in its capital requirement. However, the enactment of, and subsequent rule making related to, the 1989 Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act ("FIRREA") removed the lenient capital requirement. As a result, the bank either had to increase its capital or change its business strategy. ASB alleged that it suffered huge damages as a result. The United States government hired AEP to review ASB's damages analysis. | |||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||