Many of us have been following the continuing battle between Apple and the U.S. government on whether the government can required the company to unlock the iPhone of the San Bernardino terrorist, Syed Rizwan Farook, with a combination of confusion and concern. In the following guest post, John Reed Stark, President of John Reed Stark Consulting and former Chief of the SEC’s Office of Internet Enforcement, sorts out the issues involved in the battle between Apple and the government, in light of all the circumstances, including the February 29, 2016 opinion by Eastern District of New York Judge James Orenstein in the separate Apple iPhone unlocking case. A version of this article originally appeared on CybersecurityDocket.com. I would like to thank John for his willingness to publish his article 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 guest post. Continue Reading Guest Post: Apple Versus The FBI: Some Common Sense Reflections from “Cool Hand Luke”
, we regularly monitor new lawsuit filings and try to identify trends and patterns. Over the years, we have noted and commented on this blog about many of the trends and patterns we have identified. More than once we have noted the incidence of director and officer liability litigation arising out of environmental issues. We have also noted that D&O litigation often follows after the announcement of FCPA investigations. As discussed below, there has been a flurry of recent filings involving environmental issues. I have also noted below an interesting variant on the FCPA follow-on civil lawsuit pattern. 
This past year was an eventful one in the corporate and securities litigation arena, with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Omnicare case, important rulings in the lower courts applying the Supreme Court’s Halliburton II decision, and a host of other important decision on critical securities law issues. In the following memorandum from the Haynes and Boone law firm, attorneys from the firm’s Securities and Shareholder Litigation group take a look at the important securities litigation developments during 2015. I would like to thank the firm and the group for their willingness to publish their memorandum on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to readers of this site. Please contact me directly if you are interested in submitting a guest post. Here is the Haynes and Boone firm’s memorandum.
A highly anticipated event in the financial world each year is the release of legendary investor and Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett’s annual letter to the company’s shareholders. Market watchers and other observers value Buffett’s annual letter for its valuable insights about the financial marketplace, as well as for Buffett’s homespun humor and his wise insights about the economy and the world. In this year’s letter (
In 2015, as was the case for several years prior, companies in the life sciences sector experienced a disproportionately greater number of securities class action lawsuits than companies in other industries. As I detailed in my analysis of 2015 securities class action lawsuit filings (
In the FDIC’s latest quarterly banking profile, the agency report overall reflects a generally healthy U.S. banking sector. However, problems may loom on the horizon at least for some banks. In addition, the statistics reflect significant changes that have changed the face of the industry just in the past few years. The FDIC’s Quarterly Banking Profile for the Fourth Quarter 2015 can be found 
After Justice Antonin Scalia’s recent death, one aspect of the deceased Justice’s long record on the Supreme Court that occasioned significant commentary was the extent to which he often dissented from the Court’s majority, sometimes employing sharp and even provocative language. While Scalia was a more frequent dissenter than many of his fellow justices, at least during the time he served on the Court, there was nothing particularly unusual about the fact that he was dissenting (or, for that matter, that he dissented so frequently). Dissenting opinions have been a part of the Court’s activities for many decades now; however, it was not always so. In the country’s earliest days, dissents were rare, becoming frequent only late in the 19th century, and becoming common only early in the 20th century. As well-documented in 
After attending the PLUS D&O Symposium some years ago, several colleagues at Partner Re thought it might be worthwhile to provide D&O insurance professionals with historical overview of the evolution of Directors and Officers insurance (D&O) in the US marketplace. As a result, Brian Sabia, SVP Senior Underwriter Specialty lines; Catherine Rudow, SVP Senior Underwriter Specialty Lines; and Nicholas DeMartini, AVP Senior Underwriter Specialty Lines, all of Partner Reinsurance Company, drafted the following article, which starts with the Securities Act of 1933 and progresses through the relevant Acts, key court rulings, and the ups and downs that have driven the D&O insurance market and the evolving features of the D&O insurance policy. Their complete paper can be found 
Bank directors often have many questions about their D&O insurance coverage, and rightly so. If significant reversals at the bank result in liability claims against the company’s senior officials, the bank’s D&O insurance could be the directors’ last line of defense. In this post, I address two issues that bank directors often ask about: first, does the bank’s D&O insurance cover civil money penalties? And, second, as the credit crisis retreats further into the past, when is the D&O insurance marketplace for banks going to “return to normal”?