As I detailed in a post at the time (here), on Thursday last week, the SEC filed a securities fraud enforcement action against Tesla Chairman and CEO Elon Musk in connection with his now infamous tweets, in which he said he had “secured” funding to take the company private at a substantial premium over the company’s then-current share price. On Saturday, September 29, 2018, the SEC announced in a press release (here) that it had reached a settlement of the action with Musk, as well as in a separate action against Tesla filed simultaneously with the settlement. In the following guest post, John Reed Stark, the President of John Reed Stark Consulting and former Chief of the SEC’s Office of Internet Enforcement, takes a look at the SEC’s enforcement actions and settlements with Musk and Tesla and provides his insight about what these developments may signify as far as the SEC’s enforcement posture regarding communications on the Internet. A version of this article originally appeared on the Securities Docket. I would like to thank John for allowing me 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 John’s article. Continue Reading Guest Post: The SEC/Musk/Tesla Settlement: The Dawning of a New Era of SEC Internet Enforcement
Elon Musk’s August 7, 2018 Tweets, in which he had “secured” funding to take Tesla private at a substantial premium over the then-current share price, have already produced a storm of controversy and 
Stories of alleged sexual misconduct have dominated recent headlines. Allegations of sexual assault raised against Supreme Court Brett Kavanagh have been the lead story all week, and there has also been extensive coverage of the criminal sentencing of Bill Cosby for sexual assault. These stories arise as part of a broader series of revelations of sexual misconduct involving media figures, politicians, and corporate executives.
As I have noted in 
In a development with significant implications both for Petrobras investor claims and for the global pursuit of investor claims generally, a Dutch court has accepted jurisdiction for a securities fraud action filed in the Netherlands against Petrobras, and also ruled that the arbitration clause in Petrobras’s bylaws do not preclude the Dutch proceeding. As discussed below, the court’s rulings could have important global ramifications for the viability of Dutch procedures for investors seeking collective redress, even (as is the case in the Petrobras action) with respect to companies based outside of the Netherlands. 
In the following guest post, Tristan Hall, Andrew Milne, and Emma Boulding of the CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP law firm take a look at the increased risks to directors and officers in the U.K. for non-compliance with employer pension schemes, as well as the implications of those increased risks for D&O insurance purposes. I would like to thank the authors for their willingness to allow me to publish their 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 the authors’ article. 
For those of us involved in day to day D&O insurance transactions, it is a recognized fact that cannabis-related companies represent a tough class of insurance business. Different insurers take different approaches to the business, but at best it is a risk class that most carriers approach warily. There are reasons for the caution, mostly having to do with questions relating to legality across and between jurisdictions. The question of potential claims is a little less certain, as there arguably are relatively few claims examples. However, a recent securities class action lawsuit involving a Canadian-based cannabis business may provide some insight into the kinds of claims in which these kinds of companies may become involved – at least those that are publicly traded. 
