While the confirmation earlier this week that Mary Jo White will step down as SEC Chair at the end of the Obama administration raises interesting questions about the SEC’s possible future direction and priorities, the agency’s public company-related enforcement activities during the last fiscal year provide some very interesting insights about the SEC’s recent priorities. In an interesting November 15, 2016 report entitled “SEC Enforcement Activity Against Public Companies and Their Subsidiaries: Fiscal Year 2016” (here), the NYU Pollack Center for Law & Business and Cornerstone Research take a detailed look the SEC’s enforcement activity during the fiscal year ending on September 30, 2016. The report examines the agency’s record levels of enforcement activity involving public company defendants during the fiscal year.
Continue Reading SEC Enforcement Activity Involving Public Companies
Guest Post: IPO Lock-Up Agreement Parties Not a “Group” Liable for Short-Swing Profits
In the following guest post, attorneys from the Paul Weiss law firm review and analyze a November 3, 2016 Second Circuit decision (here) in which the appellate court held that the standard pre-IPO lock-up agreements between a company’s pre-IPO shareholders and the company’s lead IPO underwriters do not make those parties a “group” within Section 13(d) of the ’34 Act, and therefore that the lock-up agreement alone is insufficient to trigger Section 16(b) short-swing profit liability. I would like to thank the Paul Weiss attorneys for their willingness to allow me to publish their article on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the Paul Weiss attorneys’ guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: IPO Lock-Up Agreement Parties Not a “Group” Liable for Short-Swing Profits
Despite Record SEC Enforcement Activity, Senator Warren Calls for President to Fire Agency Chair
Perhaps SEC officials hoped they were bolstering their agency’s image as a tough regulator when they reported on October 11, 2016 that the SEC had filed a record number of enforcement actions in fiscal year 2016. That was certainly the way the officials quoted in the agency’s press release played it. But if that was their plan, Senator Elizabeth Warren, at least, was having none of it. Just days after the agency released its enforcement statistics, Senator Warren sent a 12-page letter to President Barack Obama calling for the President to fire Mary Jo White as SEC Chair, because, the Senator contends, under White’s watch the agency has undermined the administration’s priorities, ignored the SEC’s core mission of investor protection, and failed to promulgate or implement disclosure requirements Warren supports.
Continue Reading Despite Record SEC Enforcement Activity, Senator Warren Calls for President to Fire Agency Chair
First Monday in October: What to Watch in the Supreme Court’s New Term
October 3, 2016 is the first Monday in October, and that means that on that date the U.S. Supreme Court, as it has on the first Monday of every October since 1917, will begin its new term. While the Court will begin its term this year as it traditionally has in the recent past, it will also be operating on an unusual basis. For the first time in almost 30 years, the Supreme Court will begin its new term will only eight justices.
Continue Reading First Monday in October: What to Watch in the Supreme Court’s New Term
Six Things to Know Now About the SEC Whistleblower Program
One of the signature features of the Dodd-Frank Act was its creation of an SEC Whistleblower program. Under the program, the SEC can award whistleblowers a bounty of between ten percent and thirty percent of any recoveries the SEC makes in excess of $1 million as result of the information whistleblower provided. The program went into effect in 2011, and the agency immediately began receiving a huge volume of whistleblower reports. Over time the agency has made a number of awards, including the September 2014 award of $30 million, which is still the largest award under the whistleblower program.
While the program has been in operation now for several years, it recently kicked into high gear and the program has passed a number of important milestones. The trend lines suggest that the SEC whistleblower program is going to be an increasingly important part of the corporate liability landscape, and for that reason there are a number of important things to keep in mind.
Continue Reading Six Things to Know Now About the SEC Whistleblower Program
The Continuing Question of Morrison’s Applicability to ADR Transactions
One of the practical effects of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank is that, as a result of the decision, it is more difficult to bring a class action in a U.S. court under the U.S. securities laws against a company based outside the U.S. The Court rejected earlier standards allowing U.S. courts to consider securities suits against non-U.S. companies if conduct relating to or effects of an alleged fraud took place in the U.S. Instead, the Court said that U.S. securities laws apply only to “transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges, and domestic transactions in other securities.”
At the time of the Morrison decision, the expectation was that the number of U.S. securities class action lawsuits filed against non-U.S. companies would decline. As it has turned out however, the number of securities lawsuits filed against non-U.S. companies in each of the years since Morrison has been greater than the number filed in the years prior to the decision. Indeed, for the past several years, non-U.S. companies have been likelier to get hit with a securities class action lawsuit than domestic companies.
Continue Reading The Continuing Question of Morrison’s Applicability to ADR Transactions
Guest Post: Ninth Circuit Clarifies What Might Trigger SOX 304 Disgorgement
Among the many issues arising under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are questions surrounding disgorgement under Section 304, particularly questions concerning what actions and whose actions might trigger disgorgement. In the following guest post, Bruce Ericson of the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman law firm takes a look at the Ninth Circuit’s August 31, 2016 decision in U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jensen in which the appellate court held that the SEC can seek disgorgement from a company’s CEO or CFO even if the triggering restatement did not result from those corporate officers’ misconduct. I would like to thank Bruce for his willingness to publish his article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Bruce’s guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Ninth Circuit Clarifies What Might Trigger SOX 304 Disgorgement
SEC Enforcement Actions Decline
The SEC’s enforcement activity so far this fiscal year trails the record levels in the 2015 fiscal year. According to a recent report from Cornerstone Research (here), the SEC’s enforcement activity through the end of the fiscal third quarter (on June 30, 2016) is eight percent below the activity levels during the same period in FY 2015, largely as a result of an activity decline in the third quarter. At this point, even if the agency is active in the fourth fiscal quarter, it seems unlikely that by the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2016 that the agency’s enforcement activity will catch up to the prior year.
Continue Reading SEC Enforcement Actions Decline
Guest Post: General Solicitation Under Rule 506(b) After Citizen VC: Guiding Principles and Best Practices
In August 6, 2015, the SEC Division of Corporation Finance issued an interpretive letter to Citizen VC concerning exempt private offerings under Rule 506(b). In the following guest post, Richard M. Leisner takes a look at the SEC’s new interpretive guidance for these types of exempt offerings and suggests how best practices might evolve for permissible general solicitation activities in future Rule 506(b) private offerings that will not violate the prohibitions of Rule 502(c). Leisner is a shareholder with the Tampa office of Trenam Law. The article summarized below is scheduled for publication in Securities Regulation Law Journal, Summer 2016 Edition, a Thomson Reuters Publication. For more information about this publication please visit www.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com. This article also is posted on the Trenam Law website Legal Update available here.
Continue Reading Guest Post: General Solicitation Under Rule 506(b) After Citizen VC: Guiding Principles and Best Practices
Supreme Court Asked to Clarify Private Company’s Federal Securities Law Stock Purchase Disclosure Duties
In the D&O insurance world, private company liabilities, exposures, and insurance are viewed as categorically distinct from public company liabilities, exposures, and insurance. There are completely separate and distinct insurance policy forms for each of the two categories of companies. In this traditional view, one of the key distinctions between two kinds of companies is the potential liability of public companies and their directors and officers under the federal securities laws. However, it has recently become apparent to me that this perceived difference between the two categories of companies may be less distinct than I had perceived. For example, as I noted in a recent post, the SEC has recently made it clear it is watching private companies, and is particularly concerned with so-called “unicorns” (private start-up firms with valuations greater than $1 billion).
This issue of the potential private company liabilities under the federal securities laws came up again for me recently when I read about a petition for a writ of certiorari that a securities claim plaintiff has filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. As discussed in a June 8, 2016 post on Jim Hamilton’s World of Securities Litigation (here), the petition asks the Court to address the question whether a privately held corporation trading in its own stock has an Exchange Act duty to disclose all material information or abstain from trading. As discussed below, the petition and the underlying claim raise important questions about the potential liabilities of private companies under the federal securities laws. The May 31, 2016 cert petition in the case of Fried v. Stiefel Laboratories, Inc. can be found here.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Asked to Clarify Private Company’s Federal Securities Law Stock Purchase Disclosure Duties