Every week, the Array team reviews the latest news and analysis about the evolving field of eDiscovery to bring you the topics and trends you need to know. This week’s post covers the period of November 17-23. Here’s what’s...more
Under the Department of Commerce, the program will provide funding for research and development projects to support U.S. semiconductor advanced packaging and strengthen the manufacturing and packaging workforce. The Biden...more
Trial graphics are instrumental in conveying your story to today’s jurors. Presenting an understandable argument to a jury usually involves technology-driven visual communication in the form of demonstrative exhibits and...more
As one of the largest and most iconic entertainment brands in the world, the Walt Disney Company is most readily associated with two things: their main mascot, Mickey Mouse, and the fierce protection of their intellectual...more
With the increase in popularity of artificial intelligence uses in business, companies are scratching the surface of AI’s potential to create efficient processes, automate tasks, and generate content at a low cost. With...more
On January 30, 2023, the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSB) released its decision on the liability portion of the hearing against Stock Social Inc. and its president, CEO, and sole director, Kyle Alexander...more
On February 2, 2023, the Supreme Court of Illinois ruled that the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA or the Act) is subject to a five-year “catch-all” statute of limitations. In so ruling, the court settled a...more
Last week’s release of advisory opinions related to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) – the first such opinions from the new Chief of the Department of Justice’s FARA Unit (the “Unit”) – signal that the Unit will...more
Yenovkian v. Gulian, 2019 ONSC 7279 is a recent family law decision that is significant beyond the family law context, including in the employment law context. In this decision, Justice Kristjanson of the Ontario Superior...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
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
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
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