DOCSLIB.ORG

Code of Business Conduct and Ethics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Code of Business Conduct and Ethics Code of Business Conduct and Ethics TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Introduction 2 2. Compliance with Laws, Rules and Regulations 2 3. Conflicts of Interest 3 4. Insider Trading 4 5. Corporate Opportunities 8 6. Competition and Fair Dealing; Gifts and Entertainment 8 7. Record-Keeping and Questionable Accounting or Auditing Matters 8 8. Confidentiality 9 9. Public Dissemination of Company Information 10 10. Protection and Proper Use of Company Assets 10 11. Bribery and Corruption; Payments to Government Personnel; Political Activities and Contributions 11 12. Pledging of Company Securities 12 13. Waivers of the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics 12 14. Reporting any Illegal or Unethical Behavior 12 15. Administration 14 1 BRIXMOR PROPERTY GROUP INC. CODE OF BUSINESS CONDUCT AND ETHICS 1. INTRODUCTION This Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (this “Code”) of Brixmor Property Group Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) covers a wide range of business practices and procedures. It does not cover every issue that may arise, but it sets out policies to guide all employees, officers and directors of the Company. All of the Company’s employees, officers and directors must conduct themselves according to these policies and seek to avoid even the appearance of improper behavior. Employees and officers should also refer to the Company’s other policies, including but not limited to, the Company’s Policy Manual, Policy and Procedures for Compliance with Regulation FD, Media Inquiries Policy and Whistleblower Policy for additional policies on business conduct which supplement and are in addition to this Code. Directors should refer to the Corporate Governance Guidelines for additional policies that specifically govern the conduct of directors and, in the case of non-employee directors, compliance with this Code is subject to the provisions of the Company’s charter, bylaws and any stockholders agreement with Brixmor Property Group Inc. If a law conflicts with a policy in this Code, you must comply with the law. If you have any questions about these conflicts or this Code, you should ask your supervisor or the General Counsel how to handle the situation. Those who violate the policies in this Code will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including a termination of employment from the Company and, where appropriate, civil liability and criminal prosecution. Furthermore, violations of this Code can also result in other adverse employment actions including negative performance reviews and evaluations and/or loss of compensation or other remuneration. If you are in a situation that you believe may violate or lead to a violation of this Code, follow the notification procedures described in Section 14 of this Code. This Code is a statement of business and ethical principles and does not constitute a contract, nor does it contain any promises or guarantees or any kind. Nothing herein affects the employment at-will policy of the Company, which means that employment is not for any specific time and may be terminated at will, with or without cause and with or without prior notice by the Company, and employees may resign for any reason at any time. Any change to the policy of employment-at-will may only be made through a written agreement, approved and signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Company or his designee. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS Obeying the law, both in letter and in spirit, is one of the foundations on which this Company’s ethical policies are built. All employees, officers and directors must respect and obey the laws of the jurisdictions in which we operate. Although not all employees, officers and directors are expected to know the details of these laws, it is important to know enough to determine when to seek advice from supervisors, managers or other appropriate personnel. 3. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The Company respects the rights of employees, officers and directors to manage their personal affairs and investments and does not wish to intrude upon their personal lives. At the same time, employees, officers and directors must act in the best interests of the Company and avoid situations that present a potential or actual conflict between their interests and the interests of the Company. A “conflict of interest” exists when a person’s private interest interferes or appears to interfere in any way with an employee’s judgment in performing his or her job responsibilities in the interests of the Company. A conflict situation can arise when an employee, officer or director of the Company takes actions or has interests that may make it difficult to perform his or her Company work objectively and effectively. Conflicts of interest also arise when an employee, officer or director or members of his or her immediate family, receive improper personal benefits as a result of his or her position in or with the Company. Loans to, or guarantees of obligations of, employees, officers or directors or their immediate family members also create conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest are generally prohibited as a matter of Company policy. Exceptions may only be made after review and approval of specific or general categories by senior management (in the case of employees) or the Board of Directors (in the case of officers or directors). Officers and directors should also refer to the Company’s Statement of Policy Regarding Transactions with Related Persons. Conflicts of interest may not always be clear cut, so if you have a question, you should consult with your supervisor or the Company’s General Counsel. Any employee, officer or director who becomes aware of a conflict or potential conflict should bring it to the attention of a supervisor, manager or other appropriate personnel or consult the notification procedures described in Section 14 of this Code. Examples of Conflicts of Interests: Relationships with a Competing Business and Certain Other Entities: Engaging in a competing business with the Company is a conflict of interest. In addition, certain relationships with a competing business or an entity that has a material financial or adverse relationship with the Company are also conflicts of interest. For that reason, no employee, officer or director may, without prior approval: 1. Engage in any competing business with the Company; or 2. Engage in the following activities with a competing business, a business entity that has a material financial relationship with the Company or a business entity whose interests are adverse to or conflict with, in a material respect, the interests of the Company: • serve as an officer or key personnel; • own more than 10% of the stock or other equity interest; or • provide directly consulting, legal, advisory or other services. 3 The determination of whether a “material financial relationship” exists or whether an interest is adverse to (or in conflict with) the interests of the Company in a material respect will be made on a case-by-case basis. Outside or Additional Part-Time Work: While the best policy is to avoid any direct or indirect business connection with our customers, suppliers or competitors, except on our behalf, employees may wish to take on additional part-time work with organizations that are not our competitors, customers or suppliers. While such work in itself does not constitute a conflict of interest, the second job must be strictly separated from the employee’s job at the Company, and is subject to the following restrictions. • Outside work must not be done on Company time and must not involve the use of Company equipment or supplies. • The employee should not attempt to sell products or services from the outside work to the Company. • Performance of the outside work must not interfere with or prevent the employee from devoting the time and effort needed to fulfill the employee’s primary duties and obligations as an employee of the Company. Direct Reporting to Spouse, Partner or Immediate Family Members: The potential for conflict of interest clearly exists if your immediate family member (which, for purposes of this Code, includes a spouse, domestic or civil union partner, sibling, child, parent, in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, grandparent, grandchild, and members of household) or someone with whom you have a romantic relationship also works at the Company and is in a direct reporting relationship to you. Employees should not directly supervise, report to, or be in a position to influence the hiring, work assignments or evaluations of an immediate family member or someone with whom they have a romantic relationship. 4. INSIDER TRADING The federal securities laws prohibit any person who is in possession of material, non- public information from purchasing or selling securities on the basis of such information and from communicating such information to any other person for such use. Buying or selling securities of the Company, or any other company, while you possess material, non-public information is known as “insider trading.” “Tipping,” which is also prohibited, means communicating such material, non-public information to another for his or her or its use. Any of these actions may amount to “insider trading” and are strictly prohibited. Accordingly, all employees, officers and directors are prohibited from: • buying or selling the Company’s securities at any time when in possession of material, non-public information (including transactions in securities held through employee benefits plans, such as 401(k) plans); 4 • buying or selling securities of any other company at any time when in possession of material, non-public information obtained as a result of the employment or relationship of the director, executive officer or employee to the Company; • disclosing material, non-public information to any other person, including immediate family members (as defined above in Section 3), other relatives, friends, co-habitants or business associates, who then trades in securities or passes the information on further (“tipping”) or starting rumors related to material, non-public information; • engaging in short-term investment activities or “day-trading” of the Company’s securities; • engaging in “short-selling” of the Company’s securities (i.e.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Congressional Securities Trading
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 96 Issue 1 Article 7 Fall 2020 Congressional Securities Trading Gregory Shill University of Iowa College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Law and Economics Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, and the Securities Law Commons Recommended Citation Shill, Gregory (2020) "Congressional Securities Trading," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 96 : Iss. 1 , Article 7. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol96/iss1/7 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Congressional Securities Trading GREGORY H. SHILL* The trading ofstocks and bonds by Members of Congresspresents several risks that warrant public concern. One is the potentialfor policy distortion: lawmakers' personalinvestments may influence their official acts. Another is a special case of a general problem: that of insiders exploiting access to confidential informationfor personal gain. In each case, the current framework which is based on common law fiduciary principles is a poor fit. Surprisingly, rulesfrom a related context have been overlooked. Like lawmakers, public company insiders such as CEOsfrequently trade securities while in possession of confidential information. Those insiders' trades are governed by federal securitiesregulations. Borrowingfrom these regulations, this Essayproposes a taxonomy of congressional securities trading (CST) and develops a comprehensive prescription to manage it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lost History of Insider Trading
    THE LOST HISTORY OF INSIDER TRADING Michael A. Perino* Common conceptions about the history of insider trading norms in the United States are inaccurate and incomplete. In his landmark 1966 book Insider Trading and the Stock Market, Dean Henry Manne depicted a world in which insider trading was both widespread and universally accepted. It was SEC enforcement efforts in the early 1960s, he contended, that swayed public opinion to condemn what had previously been considered a natural and unobjectionable market feature. For five decades, the legal academy has largely accepted Manne’s historical description, and the vigorous de- bates over whether the federal government should prosecute insider trading have assumed, either explicitly or implicitly, the accuracy of those views. This paper challenges that conventional wisdom and shows that the shift in insider trading norms began earlier than has previously been supposed and substantially preceded governmental enforcement efforts. Insider trading, while generally believed to be ubiquitous in turn-of-the-century stock mar- kets, was not universally condoned. In fact, the propriety of the practice at publicly traded companies was highly contested. Those debates coincided with the growth of public companies and an ongoing shift in views about how the stock market functioned. The early twentieth century debate over insider trading thus featured both modern arguments about property rights in information and the effect that insider trading has on stock market par- ticipation and older ideas about manipulation and market inefficiency that would generally not be accepted today. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 952 II. INSIDER TRADING AT THE DAWN OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY ..........
    [Show full text]
  • Insider Trading
    TESTIMONY OF LINDA CHATMAN THOMSEN, DIRECTOR DMSION OF ENFORCEMENT US. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION CONCERNING INSIDER TRADING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE DECEMBER 5,2006 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 100 P Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20549 Testimony Concerning Insider Trading by Linda Chatman Thomsen Director, Division of Enforcement US. Securities and Exchange Commission Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary December 5,2006 Chairman Specter, Ranking Member Leahy, and Members of the Committee: Thank you for inviting me to testify today about insider trading involving hedge funds. Our laws against insider trading play an essential role in protecting our securities markets and in promoting investor confidence in the integrity of those markets. Rigorous enforcement of our current statutory and regulatory prohibitions on insider trading is an important part of the Commission's mission. I am especially pleased to testify together with Associate Deputy Attorney General Ronald Tenpas of the United States Department of Justice, and Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut. The Commission, as you know, is a civil enforcement agency and we use civil sanctions to address insider trading. However, insider trading may also violate federal criminal law, as well as state securities regulations and other state laws. The respective histories of the SEC and the Department of Justice, as well as those of state attorneys general and securities regulators, demonstrate our collective commitment to prosecuting insider trading, civilly and criminally, under federal and state law. Our respective histories also demonstrate our collective commitment to working with each other.
    [Show full text]
  • Insider Trading & Disclosureupdate
    November 2020 Volume 7 INSIDER TRADING & DISCLOSURE UPDATE In this Issue: Editors’ Remarks Editors’ Remarks 01 Welcome to the Thanksgiving 2020 issue of the Insider Trading & Disclosure Case Law & Market Updates update, Debevoise‘s periodic update focusing on recent legal, compliance and BMW Settles Charges of enforcement developments in the areas of insider trading, the management of Misleading Disclosures in material nonpublic information and disclosure-based matters. Rule 144A Offering Memoranda 01 SEC Enforcement Focus on In this Update, we highlight a rare SEC enforcement action arising in the Beneficial Ownership Reporting by Investment Advisors 03 context of a private securities offering against a foreign private issuer. Also SEC to Fund Managers: Take Care figuring prominently in this Update are two SEC enforcement actions that with Controls Over the Possession serve as a reminder to private equity and other investment managers about and Use of MNPI 06 the importance of vigilance relating to beneficial ownership reporting under SEC’s Division of Enforcement Reports Healthy Results for Section 13 and maintaining effective controls and procedures relating to the Fiscal Year 2020 07 possession and use of material non-public information, as well as an update U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Liu v. SEC may Significantly on the Supreme Court‘s decision in Liu v. SEC—which could have the effect of Limit Disgorgement in limiting the SEC‘s ability to seek disgorgement in insider trading cases—and Insider Trading Cases 10 updates on various SEC and disclosure-related developments. COVID-19 Guidance and Regulation S-K Simplification and Modernization: We hope that you find this Update useful and informative, and we look The Year in Review 13 forward to bringing you further news and analyses in future issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Blog Posts2013 Springsummer V7
    Table of Contents Feb 11, Gregg Fields. Burning Down the House: Dependency Corruption Issues in Credit Rating Practices ................. 4 Feb 18, Ted Gup. The Power of Disclosure: (What Power?) ............................................................................................ 8 Feb 20, Paul Thacker. The Slow Pace of Success in a "Do Something Congress" ....................................................... 11 Feb 21, Ken Silverstein and Brooke Williams. Membership Has Its Privileges: Donor Perks and the Atlantic Council .. 15 Feb 22, Donald W. Light. Synergies Between Moral Philosophy and Institutional Corruption ........................................ 18 Mar 07, Kirsten Austad and Aaron Kesselheim. Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry: Where does this Story Begin? ............................................................................................................................................................................. 20 Mar 8, Donald W. Light. Institutional Corruption and Countervailing Powers ................................................................. 24 Mar 09, Gregg Fields. John Reed: On the Value of Values ............................................................................................ 27 Mar 26, Sheila Kaplan. Lobbyist's Progress: An Interview With Jeff Connaughton ........................................................ 30 Mar 27, Daniel Weeks. The Fiscal Fallout: A View From Below ..................................................................................... 34 Mar
    [Show full text]
  • Cashing in on Capitol Hill: Insider Trading and the Use of Political Intelligence for Profit
    COMMENT CASHING IN ON CAPITOL HILL: INSIDER TRADING AND THE USE OF POLITICAL INTELLIGENCE FOR PROFIT † BUD W. JERKE Government officials have recently been scrutinized for using information acquired in the performance of their official duties to gain market-trading ad- vantages. Lobbyists have similarly been criticized for collecting material non- public political information from Capitol Hill contacts and selling it to their clients—notably hedge funds—who presumably use the information in their market transactions. Is this insider trading? Most likely not. Should it be? A few members of Congress have responded by introducing legislation in the past three Congresses that would bring trading on this “political intelligence,” by government insiders and outsiders, under the umbrella of the federal securities laws. Unsurprisingly, the legislation has failed to garner significant political support. But a renewed fervor for “cleaning up” Washington ushered in by the Obama Administration, coupled with the current economic crisis, has reinvigo- rated the campaign. The legislation was reintroduced and received a hearing in 2009. In addition, recent academic scholarship is now calling for the pas- sage of this legislation in order to bring trading on political intelligence under the federal insider trading regime. This Comment takes issue with the insider trading approach. It argues that the federal securities laws are an inappropriate and ineffective legal me- chanism for remedying issues of political ethics. First, as it pertains to govern- † J.D. Candidate, 2010, University of Pennsylvania Law School; B.A., 2004, The George Washington University. The author thanks Professors William W. Bratton, Jill E. Fisch, and William C.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Insider Trading: Is Misappropriation Appropriate?
    1 CONGRESSIONAL INSIDER TRADING: IS MISAPPROPRIATION APPROPRIATE? By Adam Warri 2 INTRODUCTION There is no shortage of scandals within the realm of the political world—bribery, affairs, miscounted votes, being linked to prostitution rings—the list goes on and on. But there is one ongoing scandal that both the public and lawmakers continue to overlook— Congressional “insider trading.” A five-year study conducted from 1993 to 1998 shows that senators in that time period beat the market by an average of 12.3%.1 This number is quite staggering when considering the fact that corporate insiders during that same time period were only able to outperform the market by 7.5%.2 This means that senators were outperforming the who’s who of the market by nearly 5%.3 Furthermore, the study shows that senators not only knew the stocks to pick, but knew exactly when to buy and when to sell. “[T]he prices of common stocks bought by Senators tended to stagnate prior to purchase, soar after purchase, and then stagnate again after sale.”4 No doubt these facts have a fishy aroma, but perhaps senators are simply more sophisticated in anticipating trends than the rest of the market participants—to the tune of 12.3%. This author, however, would argue that these skewed results are due to the fact that senators, along with other Congressional officers, have a significant advantage over the average trader because they are able to obtain and use material, non-public information gleaned from their Congressional position to pursue profitable trades in the market.
    [Show full text]
  • Culture and the Regulation of Insider Trading Across Countries
    Culture and the Regulation of Insider Trading Across Countries Brandon Cline, Claudia Williamson, and Haoyang Xiong Abstract This paper explores the association between culture and the cross-country financial regulation. Specifically, we examine how individualism influences the regulation of insider trading. We find that more individualistic countries regulate insider trading activities more heavily. This result is robust to the use of different instrumental variables. We further find that the positive relation between individualism and insider trading regulation is independent of particular political institution, suggesting that individualistic values directly shape people’s preferences over the regulation on insider trading activities. More importantly, we study the economic consequences of both individualism and insider trading regulation. We show that individualism leads to a better economy, and it chooses the regulation that has a positive impact on market outcomes. Keywords: Culture, Individualism, Insider trading regulation, Democracy 1 1. Introduction The regulation of insider trading varies tremendously across countries. For example, the Securities and Merchandise Market Law of Guatemala stipulates that “any person who has access to privileged information should refrain from making operations with any type of securities…persons who contravene the provisions will be sanctioned with fines of five thousand to fifty thousand units.” While in the U.S. the situation is way different. According to the Insider Trading Sanctions Act of 1984, communicating or purchasing or selling a security while in possession of material nonpublic information would violate the law or result in liability. The court shall have jurisdiction to impose a civil penalty not exceeding three times the profit gained or loss voided.
    [Show full text]
  • On the American Paradox of Laissez Faire and Mass Incarceration
    ON THE AMERICAN PARADOX OF LAISSEZ FAIRE AND MASS INCARCERATION Bernard E. Harcourt∗ What we come to believe — so often, in reality, mere fiction and myth — takes on the character of truth and has real effects, tangible effects on our social and political condition. These beliefs, these hu- man fabrications, are they simply illusions? Are they fantasies? Are they reflections on a cave wall? Over the past two centuries at least, brilliant and well-regarded thinkers have proposed a range of theories and methods to emancipate us from these figments of our imagination. They have offered genealogies and archaeologies, psychoanalysis, Ideologiekritik, poststructuralism, and deconstruction — to name but a few. Their writings are often obscure and laden with a jargon that has gotten in the way of their keen insights, but their central point contin- ues to resonate loudly today: our collective imagination has real effects on our social condition and on our politics. It is important, it is vital to question what passes as truth. Any sophisticated listener, for instance, would have understood immediately what Barack Obama was doing when he declared on the campaign trail in 2008 that “[t]he market is the best mechanism ever invented for efficiently allocating resources to maximize production.”1 Or when he quickly added, “I also think that there is a connection be- tween the freedom of the marketplace and freedom more generally.”2 Obama was tapping into a public imaginary, one reflected at the time by the overwhelming belief, shared by more than two-thirds
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence from Illegal Insider Trading Tips
    Journal of Financial Economics 125 (2017) 26–47 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Financial Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfec Information networks: Evidence from illegal insider trading R tips Kenneth R. Ahern Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, 701 Exposition Boulevard, Ste. 231, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1422, USA a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: This paper exploits a novel hand-collected data set to provide a comprehensive analysis Received 20 April 2015 of the social relationships that underlie illegal insider trading networks. I find that in- Revised 15 February 2016 side information flows through strong social ties based on family, friends, and geographic Accepted 15 March 2016 proximity. On average, inside tips originate from corporate executives and reach buy-side Available online 11 May 2017 investors after three links in the network. Inside traders earn prodigious returns of 35% JEL Classification: over 21 days, with more central traders earning greater returns, as information conveyed D83 through social networks improves price efficiency. More broadly, this paper provides some D85 of the only direct evidence of person-to-person communication among investors. G14 ©2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. K42 Z13 Keywords: Illegal insider trading Information networks Social networks 1. Introduction cation between investors ( Stein, 2008; Han and Yang, 2013; Andrei and Cujean, 2015 ). The predictions of these mod- Though it is well established that new information els suggest that the diffusion of information over social moves stock prices, it is less certain how information networks is crucial for many financial outcomes, such as spreads among investors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenges of Prosecuting Congressional Insider Trading by Robert K
    Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th Floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] The Challenges Of Prosecuting Congressional Insider Trading By Robert K. Kelner, Peter Koski and Clayton Bailey (June 18, 2020, 5:32 PM EDT) Allegations that U.S. senators traded on confidential briefings about COVID-19 have brought new enforcement attention to the rarely used Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge, or STOCK, Act. In a sign of significant escalation, last month the FBI reportedly seized the mobile phone of Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., in connection with one such investigation, even as the U.S. Department of Justice announced it was closing investigations into Sens. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., and Diane Feinstein, D-Calif. The FBI also reportedly served a warrant on Apple Inc. seeking data stored in Burr's Robert K. Kelner iCloud account. The STOCK Act, first enacted in 2012, prohibits members of Congress and other government officials from trading on material nonpublic information "derived from such person's position as a Member of Congress or employee of Congress or gained from the performance of such person's official responsibilities."[1] While these allegations may resemble traditional insider trading, the challenges for prosecutors are unique and exacting. Charges under the STOCK Act have never been brought against a member of the legislative branch, and prosecutors face at least Peter Koski two potentially existential challenges due to the nature of legislative work. First, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Celebrating the 50-Year Legacy of Ball and Brown (1968) Using a Registration-Based Framework
    1 Responsible Science: Celebrating the 50-year Legacy of Ball and Brown (1968) using a Registration-based Framework Hiroyuki Aman; Wendy Beekes; Henk Berkman; Marc Bohmann; Mike Bradbury; Ellie Chapple; Millicent Chang; Victoria Clout; Robert Faff; Jianlei Han; David Hillier; Allan Hodgson; Bryan Howeison; Jonathan Jona; Martina Linnenluecke; Tiago Loncan; Browyn McCredie; David Michayluk; Nick Mroczkowski; Zheyao (Terry) Pan; Vinay Patel; Edward Podolski; Noami Soderstrom; Tom Smith; George Tanewski; Kathleen Walsh; Marvin Wee; Sue Wright Abstract This paper represents the intersection of three spheres of influence, highly relevant to the global research community interested in a more reliable understanding of capital market phenomena. First, as a timely context, we celebrate the 50-year legacy of an iconic paper on event studies, Ball and Brown (1968). Second, we add our voice to the growing call for researchers to follow principles of “responsible science”. Third, using the Ball and Brown paper as their inspiration, we report on an experiment in which several teams of researchers follow a registration-based editorial process, which illustrates one fruitful avenue on how more responsible research can be fostered in the future. 2 1 Introduction Our study brings together three spheres of influence, highly relevant to the global research community interested in a more reliable understanding of capital market phenomena. First, we celebrate the 50-year legacy of an iconic paper on event studies, Ball and Brown (1968) [BB68]. BB68 is shown to have a seminal influence, far beyond the seemingly narrow question it originally posed all those years ago (namely, around whether accounting information is useful).
    [Show full text]