David Fontaine
John Reed Stark

As I noted in a post at the time, on February 21, 2018, the SEC released its cybersecurity disclosure guidance for publicly traded companies. In the following guest post, David Fontaine, CEO of Kroll, Inc. and its parent, Corporate Risk Holdings, and John Reed Stark, President of John Reed Stark Consulting and former Chief of the SEC’s Office of Internet Enforcement, take a look at the SEC’s guidance, with a particular focus on what the agency’s statement has to say about the duties of corporate directors. A version of this article originally appeared on The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation (Here). I would like to thank David and John 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 David and John’s article.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Cybersecurity: The SEC’s Wake-Up Call to Corporate Directors

As I noted at the beginning of the U.S. Supreme Court’s current term in my summary of securities cases on the Court’s docket, one of the three key securities cases the court was to consider this term was Leidos, Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement Systems. As discussed in greater detail here, this case, which was to be argued on November 6, 2017, was to address the recurring question of whether the failure to make disclosure required by Item 303 of Reg. S-K is an actionable omission under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. However, as a result of developments in the case, the case is now in “abeyance,” oral argument in the case has taken off the calendar, and the case ultimately may be removed from the court’s docket altogether.
Continue Reading Item 303 Disclosure Duty Case Off Supreme Court’s Docket Due to Reported Settlement

supreme courtThe U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case that will address a recurring issue that has arisen in the securities class action litigation arena – that is, whether or not the alleged failure to make a disclosure required by Item 303 of Reg. S-K is an actionable omission under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. A circuit split has emerged on this issue, with the Second Circuit holding that Item 303 does create an actionable duty of disclosure, while the Ninth and Third Circuits have held that it does not. The Court’s grant of the writ of certiorari in the case of Leidos, Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System will afford the Court an opportunity to resolve the circuit split and to address the question of whether Item 303 creates an actionable disclosure duty. The U.S. Supreme Court’s March 27, 2017 order granting the writ of certiorari can be found here.
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Whether Item 303 Creates Actionable Disclosure Duty