[Podcast] Charging George Santos: Analyzing the U.S. Department of Justice’s Indictment of the Congressman
What is Fraud and How to Defend Against the Claim
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: Examining FDA’s Enforcement Authority Over Stem Cell Clinics and Compounders
The federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, is one of the commonly used statutes in federal white-collar criminal cases. In our digital age, nearly any significant fraud or scheme could probably be charged as a wire...more
In Ciminelli v. United States, the United States Supreme Court resolved a decades-long circuit split and clarified that to be guilty of federal wire fraud, prosecutors must prove that the defendant’s scheme to defraud...more
The Supreme Court has granted a petition for writ of certiorari in Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. to determine whether invalidation of copyright registrations under Section 411(b) of the Copyright Act has an...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to tackle a technical copyright registration question: when a defendant alleges knowing inaccuracies in a copyright registration, does 17 U.S.C. § 411 require referral to the...more
Last week the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Unicolors, Inc. v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz, LP, which considers when inaccuracies in a US copyright application can be used to invalidate a resulting registration. The case...more
On June 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case that will likely determine once and for all whether courts are empowered to void copyright registrations based on immaterial registration errors, or whether...more
On August 13, 2019, in the first case by a U.S. Court of Appeals to apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lorenzo v. SEC, 139 S. Ct. 1094 (2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the...more
We are pleased to present our annual mid-year update on financial reporting and issuer disclosure enforcement activity for 2019. This White Paper primarily focuses on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's enforcement...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that someone doesn’t need to have “made” a false or misleading statement to have primary liability under the securities fraud rules. ...more
Enforcement Co-Directors Stephanie Avakian and Steven Peikin recently addressed notable enforcement decisions, actions and trends affecting public companies and regulated entities. On April 8 and 9, 2019, the US Securities...more
On March 27, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision addressing whether someone who is not the "maker" of a misstatement can nonetheless be primarily liable for fraud under the federal securities laws, when the...more
On March 27, 2019, Justice Breyer, writing for a six-Justice majority of the Supreme Court, issued a decision in Lorenzo v. SEC, 139 S. Ct. 1094 (2019), holding that one who knowingly distributes a material misstatement can...more
Sender Primary Liability for Misstatements in PPMs and Prospectuses: Lorenzo v. SEC (No. 17-1077 -- U.S. – 2019). On March 27th, the Supreme Court issued a 1934 Act Rule 10b-5 opinion that will have implications for...more
On March 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Lorenzo v. SEC,[i] affirming the expansive view of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) that, under the right circumstances,...more
On March 27, 2019, the Supreme Court, in Francis V. Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, held (in a 6-2 decision) that a person who (i) knowingly disseminates false and misleading statements to prospective investors...more
On Wednesday, March 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and endorsed a broad view of so-called “scheme liability” under SEC Rule 10b-5(a) and (c)....more
The dissemination of false or misleading information can give rise to primary liability. In Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Supreme Court held that someone who (with intent to defraud) disseminates a...more
On March 27, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lorenzo v. SEC, affirming the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Court held that "dissemination of false or misleading...more
In a significant ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has expanded the potential liability of those involved in disseminating material misrepresentations to potential investors—exposing them to primary liability under SEC Rule...more
The Supreme Court of the United States recently upheld a broad interpretation of the antifraud rule of the federal securities laws that likely will have far-reaching implications for enforcement and civil actions....more
In its 2011 Janus decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that SEC Rule 10b-5 imposes liability for a false statement in connection with a securities transaction only on the “maker” of the statement, the “person or entity with...more
Highly anticipated opinion extends primary liability for securities fraud beyond the “maker” of false statements. Key Points: ..The Court held that a defendant’s act of sending emails drafted by another, that the...more
On March 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Lorenzo v. SEC, No. 17-1077 (2019), held that dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud violates Rules 10b–5(a) and (c) under the Securities Exchange...more
In Lorenzo v. Securities & Exchange Comm., No. 17-1077, 2019 WL 1369839 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2019), the Supreme Court of the United States (Breyer, J.) held that an individual who did not “make” a false or misleading statement...more
• The United States Supreme Court held that a disseminator of a false statement with intent to defraud can be held liable under subsections (a) and (c) of Rule 10b-5, §10(b) of the Exchange Act and §17(a)(1) of the Securities...more