It is illegal under the Securities Exchange Act to make false or misleading statements to the investing public about material facts. At the same time, corporations and their officers must be able to make statements about the company’s future plans, projections, and aspirations without fear of opening themselves up to
The massive data breach of the United States Commerce and Treasury Departments that has roiled the federal government has resulted in federal securities litigation. On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff-Shareholder Timothy Bremer filed a class action complaint against SolarWinds and SolarWinds’ corporate executives in the United States District Court for the…
In times of crisis, fraudsters attempt to exploit the latest news developments to lure investors into scams, and the once-in-a-century global health crisis we are currently facing is no exception. On February 4, 2020, the SEC noted in an Investor Alert that it was aware of a number of web-based promotions claiming that the products or services of publicly-traded companies could prevent, detect, or cure COVID-19—and that the stock of these companies would skyrocket as a result. The Investor Alert warned market participants to be vigilant and put publicly-traded companies on notice that the Commission is watching.
In today’s world, cybersecurity breaches and threats are pervasive concerns for any business entity, without exception. Working from home arrangements due to COVID-19 constraints only magnify the risk and create further vulnerabilities for companies. Companies should be aware of (1) the key cyber threats they face, (2) the consequences of a breach, and (3) the statutory and regulatory framework governing cybersecurity. Cybersecurity breaches are unique in that an entity can both be the victim of the breach and still be found to have a degree of responsibility. Fortunately, there are precautionary measures that companies can implement to help prevent a breach and to mitigate the scope and damage of a breach if one were to occur. We will elaborate on the steps to take to guard against a breach and how to effectively respond to a breach in a forthcoming post.
Characterizing the decision to bring a books and records inspection action after filing a plenary or substantive action as “[i]nherently contradictory,” the Delaware Court of Chancery recently dismissed a Section 220 action brought by a group of investors. The decision signals that the Court of Chancery remains alert to the use of books and records inspection actions for improper purposes, including to subvert the ordinary conduct of civil discovery.
If the government obtains information about your past locations from your wireless provider, is that a search? If so, is it a search that requires the government to obtain a warrant? Courts have held that, because companies collect this kind of data in the ordinary course of business, consumers who voluntarily provide information to these third-parties have no reasonable expectation of privacy in it. A string of robberies may prompt the Supreme Court to reconsider this doctrine.
The Second Circuit recently revived a putative securities class action against Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. and four of its top executives for alleged material misrepresentations in connection with the company’s $25 billion initial public offering in September 2014 – the largest in U.S. history. Chief Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York had dismissed the suit in June 2016, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In a summary order last week, the Second Circuit vacated and remanded, concluding that Judge McMahon misapplied Rule 12(b)(6) standards in dismissing the investors’ claims.
On October 16, 2017, the Supreme Court agreed to review the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Microsoft Corp., a case that highlights the current tension between law enforcement needs and privacy concerns in a rapidly changing digital landscape.