securities liability

Subscribe to securities liability via RSS
Lawrence Fine

As discussed here, in its April 2024 decision in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a failure to disclose information required by Item 303 of Regulation S-K cannot support a private claim under Rule 10b-5 in the absence of an otherwise-misleading statement. The upshot is that so-called “pure omissions” cases are not actionable, meaning that omissions are only actionable if they make an affirmative statement materially misleading. In the following guest post, Larry Fine, Management Liability Coverage Leader for WTW, takes a closer look at the Macquarie decision and considers its implications, particularly with respect to future cases based on alleged omissions. A version of this article was previously published as a WTW client alert. I would like to thank Larry for allowing me to publish this article as a guest post 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 Larry’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: The Additional Pro-Defense Benefits of the Macquarie Decision

Nessim Mezrahi

As I have noted in prior posts (most recently here), plaintiffs’ lawyers recently have attempted to rely on statements in social media posts as the basis on which to assert liability under the securities laws. In the following guest post, Nessim Mezrahi considers whether statements in posts on Twitter can support liability for securities law violations. Mezrahi is co-founder and CEO of SAR, a securities class action data analytics and software company. A version of this article previously was published on Law360. I would like to thank Nessim 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 Nessim’s article.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Why Tweets May Not Validate Securities Class Action Liability

If things these days for the rest of you are the way they are for me, then all of you are basically finding out that SPACs are taking over your life. All SPACs, all the time. Wall to wall SPACs. At one level, this development should come as no surprise, as the sheer volume of SPAC activity is nothing short of astonishing. According to SPACInsider (here), since January 1, 2020, there have been a total of 554 SPAC IPOs completed – 308 in the three and a half months of 2021 alone. A further 261 SPAC IPO Registrations are currently pending. A staggering 435 post-IPO SPACs are currently in the process of trying to identify merger partners.  Along with this wave of financial activity has come an accompanying flow of SPAC-related news and information. I have identified below just a few of the many SPAC-related items that crossed my desk in the last week; the selected items underscore the opportunities and risks involved in the SPAC-crazy world that we all now inhabit. And as also noted below, there could be some hints of a slowdown as well.
Continue Reading All SPACs, All the Time

As I have noted in prior posts (most recently here), there has been a wave of Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) offerings this year. And as I have also noted, with all of the SPAC offerings have come problems and concerns. As discussed in the following guest post from Carrie O’Neil, Doru Gavril, and Boris Feldman, the D&O insurance marketplace has struggled to respond to these developments, and a number of different approaches to SPAC transactions have emerged. Carrie is a Senior Vice President at CAC Specialty and serves as a product development leader and claims advocate within its Legal and Claims Practice. Doru is a partner at the Freshfields law firm. Boris is a partner and head of the U.S. Technology practice at Freshfields. A version of this article was published on A Fresh Take, Freshfields’ blog on M&A, litigation, and corporate governance. The article also appeared on the CAC Specialty blog, CACConnect, here. I would like to thank the authors for allowing 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 site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Mind the (SPAC) Gap

One of the most distinct phenomena at the peak of the Internet bubble in the late 90s was the way that so many otherwise entirely ordinary companies added “dot com” to their names to try to cash in on the frenzy. It now looks as if some companies are attempting moves from the same playbook amidst the current cryptocurrency mania. Companies with no prior connection either to bitcoin or blockchain are adopting names or strategies as a way to try to ride the current wave, even where the companies have little or no experience with the technologies. Regulators noting these developments have started sounding the alarm bell. And in at least one instance, these kinds of developments have led to securities litigation.
Continue Reading Company Capitalizing on Blockchain Mania Draws Securities Suit

One issue with which courts dealing with insider trading cases have struggled is how to interpret and apply the personal benefit element of the liability standard. The personal benefit standard was in fact an important part of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Salman v. United States (as discussed here). Last week, the Second Circuit issued an important decision in the United States v. Martoma, in which the appellate court provided important additional perspective on the personal benefit test. In the following guest post, Brad S. Karp, Geoffrey R. Chepiga, Daniel J. Kramer, Lorin L. Reisner, Audra J. Soloway, and Richard C. Tarlowe of the Paul Weiss law firm take a look at the Second Circuit’s decision in the Martoma case and the appellate court’s discussion of the personal benefit test. 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 site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ guest post.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Divided Second Circuit Panel Overrules Prior Newman Insider Trading Decision

sec sealThe Securities and Exchange Commission is primarily concerned with public companies and the securities markets in which the shares of public companies trade. However, in a series of recent speeches and presentations as part of what the agency had called the “Silicon Valley Initiative,” the agency made it clear that it is increasingly concerned with private and pre-IPO companies as well, particularly so-called “unicorns” – that is, the private start-up firms with valuations greater than $1 billion. SEC Chairman Mary Jo White highlighted these concerns in a March 31, 2016 speech at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford Law School, a copy of which can be found here.

As summarized in an April 4, 2016 memo from the Fenwick & West law firm about the SEC’s Silicon Valley Initiative, “the SEC is closely watching the conduct of private companies as well as emerging platforms that trade in private company securities, and will bring enforcement cases as needed to protect investors.” The agency’s recent presentations and SEC Chair White’s speech, the memo said, underscored that “the SEC expects even private companies to embrace and demonstrate sound corporate governance.”

As discussed below, these pronouncements from the SEC raise troublesome questions about what has in the past been viewed as a clear demarcation between the potential liability exposures for private and public companies.
Continue Reading SEC Warning: It Is Watching Private Companies

Whistleblower information may be one of the SEC’s “most effective weapons in its new enforcement arsenal,” but the agency’s whistleblower program “faces challenges on many fronts,” according to an April 23, 2013 New York Times Dealbook article entitled “Hazy Future for Thriving S.E.C. Whistle-Blower Effort” (here). As evidence of the whistleblower program’s promise…