DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
The Dangers of Untimely Filings – What Employers Need to Know
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: A Discussion of Kisor v. Wilkie
Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
E17: Carpenter Decision Builds Up Privacy from #SCOTUS
On April 12, 2024, in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., the US Supreme Court held that a company’s mere failure to disclose information required by management’s discussion and analysis (Item 303 of SEC...more
“Employer securities” in retirement plans have been the source of a significant amount of litigation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”). In general, “employer securities” are...more
The United States Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, declined to address whether plan participants sufficiently alleged breach of fiduciary duty claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as...more
In January, the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated opinion in Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander, No. 18-1165, a case that promised to clarify the pleading standard applicable to ERISA stock-drop cases. But...more
Brief Takeaway: Plan sponsors that offer employer stock in their benefit plans can breathe a sigh of relief, as the Supreme Court vacated one of the only plaintiff-friendly rulings in ERISA “stock drop” litigation. ...more
The United States Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion on Tuesday in Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v Jander, punting back to the court of appeals the determination of whether plan fiduciaries can be liable under...more
On January 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander, No. 18-1165, remanding the case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether to address the views of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court today in Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander, No. 18-1165 (2020) (per curiam), declined to resolve questions about the pleading standard for a breach of fiduciary duty claim against fiduciaries...more
After much anticipation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC or Commission) Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)....more
The new executive order (EO) granting agency chiefs the power to hire administrative law judges (ALJs) according to their own standards—and eliminating the exam and competitive hiring process formerly in place—could turn the...more
In one of its last opinions of the term, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Lucia v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on June 21, 2018, that administrative law judges (ALJs) are officers of the United States, not...more
During its most recent Term, the Supreme Court held in Lucia v. SEC that the administrative law judges (“ALJs”) that preside over adjudications at the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) are “Officers of the United...more
Orrick's Andrew Morris and Ben Aiken co-authored an article for Law360 in which they identify three of the most significant defense arguments for respondents in SEC administrative actions in light of the Supreme Court's...more
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lucia v. SEC to resolve the federal circuit court split on whether the SEC’s administrative law judges (ALJs) are "inferior officers" of the United States who must be...more
On June 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on the question of whether administrative law judges (“ALJs”) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or the “Commission”) qualify as...more
In its June 21 decision in Lucia v. Securities & Exchange Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that administrative law judges (ALJs) used by the SEC are “Officers of the United States” under the Appointments Clause in...more
In Lucia v. SEC, the U.S. Supreme Court made things messy for the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") by vindicating constitutional concerns over the agency's use of administrative law judges. The Court concluded that...more
On June 21, 2018 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lucia et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, [1] that the appointment of certain administrative law judges (“ALJs”) was unconstitutional, and that those with matters...more
On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court in Raymond J. Lucia, et al. v. SEC, held that the SEC’s administrative law judges are “Officers of the United States” whose appointment must comport with the requirements of the...more
On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated the process that the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") had been using to appoint administrative law judges. Staff from the SEC had selected...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held, in Lucia v. SEC,1 that Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) are officers of the United States who must be appointed...more
In Lucia v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Justice Elena Kagan, writing for a six-justice majority, presents the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision as both narrow and uncomplicated. “The sole question” the court chose to...more
Many cases involving federal regulatory law are largely decided by judges appointed by the staffs of federal agencies—administrative law judges (ALJs). In a case closely watched for its securities and white-collar crime...more
• SEC ALJs are “Officers of the United States” within the meaning of the Appointments Clause and therefore must be appointed directly by the SEC. The Court’s decision may permit litigants in prior and pending administrative...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that administrative law judges (ALJs) of the Securities and Exchange Commission are "Officers of the United States" under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and are not mere...more