Wait, that’s covered? Insurability of Fines and Penalties Flowing From a Cybersecurity Breach
FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report-Episode 31-the FCPA Year in Review, Corporate Enforcement Actions
FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report-Episode 30-Interview with the FCPA Professor-Part 2
Condo complaints not in writing?
Health Data on Leased Photocopier Costs Company $1.2m—What Others Can Learn
A legal fight with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) over the release of documents—including the names of institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) members—has already cost the University of...more
This year has seen further record GDPR fines levied by Data Protection Authorities, however, a second “under the radar” risk exists—namely, being sued for damages. Today we saw a sea-change case (Lloyd v Google) ruling by...more
The Court of Appeal upheld a Coastal Commission cease-and-desist order requiring demolition of a seawall and payment of a $1 million penalty by homeowners who performed major reconstruction on their coastal home without...more
The Bank of China and four other Chinese banks (the Banks) are urging the Second Circuit to reject a requested $150 million contempt sanction for allegedly perpetuating the sale of counterfeit Nike and Converse products by...more
Two courts recently answered “yes,” finding that environmental claims brought against reorganized debtors by government entities were discharged under confirmed Chapter 11 plans of reorganization. In In re Exide Techs., 613...more
On March 10, 2020, the England and Wales Court of Appeal (CoA) handed down its judgment in the appeals by the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and Flynn Pharma Ltd. against a June 2018 Competition Appeal...more
The decision to appeal a regulatory finding is never taken lightly. By the time a regulator has completed its investigation and notified a company of its intention to fine, the company will have invested significant time and...more
ANTICORRUPTION DEVELOPMENTS - Telecommunications Company Fined $12 Million for FCPA Violations - On August 29, 2019, The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) instituted ceaseand-desist proceedings against...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that someone doesn’t need to have “made” a false or misleading statement to have primary liability under the securities fraud rules. ...more
On March 27, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision addressing whether someone who is not the "maker" of a misstatement can nonetheless be primarily liable for fraud under the federal securities laws, when the...more
On March 27, 2019, Justice Breyer, writing for a six-Justice majority of the Supreme Court, issued a decision in Lorenzo v. SEC, 139 S. Ct. 1094 (2019), holding that one who knowingly distributes a material misstatement can...more
On March 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Lorenzo v. SEC,[i] affirming the expansive view of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) that, under the right circumstances,...more
On March 27, 2019, the Supreme Court, in Francis V. Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, held (in a 6-2 decision) that a person who (i) knowingly disseminates false and misleading statements to prospective investors...more
On Wednesday, March 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and endorsed a broad view of so-called “scheme liability” under SEC Rule 10b-5(a) and (c)....more
The dissemination of false or misleading information can give rise to primary liability. In Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Supreme Court held that someone who (with intent to defraud) disseminates a...more
On March 27, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lorenzo v. SEC, affirming the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Court held that "dissemination of false or misleading...more
The Supreme Court of the United States recently upheld a broad interpretation of the antifraud rule of the federal securities laws that likely will have far-reaching implications for enforcement and civil actions....more
In its 2011 Janus decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that SEC Rule 10b-5 imposes liability for a false statement in connection with a securities transaction only on the “maker” of the statement, the “person or entity with...more
Highly anticipated opinion extends primary liability for securities fraud beyond the “maker” of false statements. Key Points: ..The Court held that a defendant’s act of sending emails drafted by another, that the...more
On March 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Lorenzo v. SEC, No. 17-1077 (2019), held that dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud violates Rules 10b–5(a) and (c) under the Securities Exchange...more
In Lorenzo v. Securities & Exchange Comm., No. 17-1077, 2019 WL 1369839 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2019), the Supreme Court of the United States (Breyer, J.) held that an individual who did not “make” a false or misleading statement...more
• The United States Supreme Court held that a disseminator of a false statement with intent to defraud can be held liable under subsections (a) and (c) of Rule 10b-5, §10(b) of the Exchange Act and §17(a)(1) of the Securities...more
In a 6 to 2 opinion Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to extend its holding in Janus Capital Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135 (2011) beyond Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(b), and held that a person who...more
On March 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Case No. 17-1077 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2019) that broadened the group of persons who could face primary liability for...more
On March 27, 2019, in Lorenzo v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that the types of conduct that violate the three subsections of SEC Rule 10b-5 are not mutually exclusive. The court...more