2018-19 Technology Editor, 2017-18 Senior Editor, 2017 Contributor
Kasia is currently a third-year, evening student at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law pursuing a joint JD & LLM in Tax. She is a graduate of Boston University where she earned a Bachelor of Arts in International Relations and a Master of Education in Policy, Planning and Administration. Additionally, she completed a graduate certificate in Database Design and Administration at the University of Denver.
Prior to coming to law school, Kasia worked in higher education where she has over a dozen years of experience in enrollment management and financial aid. Last year, Kasia interned with the in-house legal department at TTEC. In addition to her involvement with The Race to the Bottom, Kasia is a Staff Editor with the Denver Law Review and is pursing a certificate in the Corporate and Commercial Law Program.
In her free time, Kasia enjoys gardening, hiking, snowboarding, and otherwise enjoying the Colorado outdoors.
Connect with Kasia on Linked In
Best known for its role in the rise of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, blockchain is a revolutionary technology that has the potential to transform how business transactions are conducted. For now, blockchain is primarily applied in digital financial transactions, like cryptocurrencies, but it presents a lot of opportunities for a wide variety of industries—from home entertainment to real estate to contract drafting —and beyond. This short article offers a brief introduction to blockchain, provides insight about its current uses, and summarizes some future applications.
In SEC v. Riel, No. 5:15-CV-1166 (MAD/DEP), 2017 BL 342140 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2017), the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Security Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) motion for summary judgment against Charles Riel III (“Riel”), and granted the SEC’s motion for default judgment against REinvest, LLC (“REinvest”) (collectively “Defendants”), for Defendants’ violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), and Riel’s alleged violations of Sections 20(a) and 20(e) of the Exchange Act, and Section 15(b) of the Securities Act.
In Dorian LPG Ltd., 2017 BL 229502 (June 29, 2017), Dorian LPG Ltd. (“Dorian”) asked the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to permit the omission of a shareholder proposal submitted by SEACOR Holdings Inc. ("Shareholder"), requesting Dorian amend its bylaws to require shareholder approval prior to the adoption of any rights plan and to require the redemption of rights issued under existing rights plan. The SEC issued the requested no action letter allowing the exclusion of the proposal under Rule 14a-8(i)(11).
This post is part of an ongoing series that examines the way stock exchange independence rules relate to director compensation. We are for the most part including companies from 2017’s Fortune 500 and using information found in their 2017 proxy statements.
NASDAQ and the NYSE have similar rules with respect to director independence. NYSE Rule 303A.01 requires that each listed company’s board of directors be comprised of a majority of independent directors. A director does not qualify as “independent” if he or she has a “material relationship with the company.” NYSE Rule 303A.02(a).
In In Re Hedayati, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80238 (admin proc Mar. 14, 2017), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued an order instituting public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Nima Hedayati (“Hedayati”) for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In anticipation of the proceedings against him, Hedayati submitted, and the SEC accepted, an Offer of Settlement (“Offer”), in which he neither admitted nor denied the allegations.