Podcast: The Briefing - Is Linda Fairstein’s Portrayal in Netflix’s “When They See Us” Fair?
The Briefing: Is Linda Fairstein’s Portrayal in Netflix’s “When They See Us” Fair?
Podcast - The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Defamation by Docudrama – Inventing Anna
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Defamation by Docudrama – Inventing Anna
Law Brief®: Joel Rosner and Richard Schoenstein Discuss Palin vs. The Times
Negative Online Reviews and Reputation Management: Tips for Health Care Practices and Providers
Deepfakes and Disinformation: The World of Manipulated Media
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: “Inspired By” Characters – Defamation Lawsuit Part II
Williams Mullen's COVID-19 Comeback Plan: Preparing Today for Tomorrow's PPP Audit
Podcast - Developments in FDA & DOJ Regulation and Enforcement of Manufacturer Communications
On March 21, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court held in Thompson v. United States that a federal statute prohibiting “false” statements to banks, 18 USC § 1014, does not apply to statements that are merely misleading. Although...more
The vast majority of federal white-collar fraud enforcement actions are prosecuted under the wire, mail, or bank fraud statutes. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1344. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Thompson v. United...more
Last week a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Thompson v. United States, 2025 WL 876266 (2025), holding that a statement that is literally true but allegedly misleading, is not a “false statement” under 18...more
In a unanimous decision issued on March 21, 2025, the Supreme Court in Thompson v. U.S. heightened the burden of proof for “false” statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1014, excluding “misleading” but true statements from liability...more
On March 21, the Supreme Court announced its opinion in Thompson v. United States, reversing the Seventh Circuit and holding that 18 U.S.C. § 1014's prohibition on making "any false statement" does not extend to misleading,...more
If you tell your partner that you spent $100 on a rare bobblehead for your office, when the full price was actually $1,000, have you said anything false? Literally, you did spend $100; you just spent another $900 as well....more
On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, that “pure omissions” made in required disclosures do not...more
On April 12, 2024, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L. P., vacating a judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that had reinstated claims...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that pure silence in MD&A statements are not actionable in shareholder securities fraud cases. The case is important for issuers and shareholders alike for several reasons: -...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has now resolved the split in lower courts, discussed in our March 14, 2024 post, over whether plaintiffs may bring a securities fraud claim based solely on a corporation’s omission from public filings...more
SEC Rule 10b-5(b) makes it unlawful for issuers to make false statements or “to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made...not misleading.” In addition to ensuring the truth of statements,...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that the anti-fraud provision of the Securities Exchange Act does not prohibit “pure omissions,” but only false statements or misleading half-truths. The unanimous decision in Macquarie...more
After previously finding that the Biden White House and the FBI likely violated First Amendment free speech protections for some users of online social media platforms, the Fifth Circuit expanded its ruling to find that the...more
On August 10, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit took an important step in Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Goldman Sachs Group toward clarifying the circumstances in which federal class action...more
On August 13, 2019, in the first case by a U.S. Court of Appeals to apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lorenzo v. SEC, 139 S. Ct. 1094 (2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the...more
We are pleased to present our annual mid-year update on financial reporting and issuer disclosure enforcement activity for 2019. This White Paper primarily focuses on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's enforcement...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 April 5-6, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) held its annual SEC Speaks Conference in Washington, D.C. Summarized below are several significant insights conveyed by SEC Staff that are instructive for...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