Episode 335 -- The New DOJ Whistleblower Program
Navigating Emerging Privacy Issues in Financial Services — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Implications of the SEC Cybersecurity Disclosure Rule
Corruption, Crime and Compliance: SEC Suffers Dismissal of Claims in Solarwinds Securities Fraud Case
Episode 334 -- District Court Dismisses Bulk of SEC Claims Against Solarwinds
The Woody Report: The Solar Winds Dismissal
In That Case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
Corruption, Crime and Compliance: Deep Dive into The SEC’s Settlement with R&R Donnelly on Cybersecurity Controls
Episode 332 -- Deep Dive into SEC’s Internal Controls and Cybersecurity Settlement with R&R Donnelly
The Justice Insiders Podcast: Jarkesy’s Implications for the Administrative State
DE Under 3: OFCCP Must Shut Down its Administrative Court Prosecutions as a Result of SCOTUS’ SEC Jury Trial Case Decision
Dogecoin’s Day in Court
Unpacking the Lummis-Gillibrand Payment Stablecoin Act: Implications for the Digital Asset Industry — The Crypto Exchange Podcast
Podcast: Is Cryptocurrency a Security (like an orange grove)?
Navigating the Regulatory Waters: The SEC's Wells Notice to Uniswap and its Impact on DeFi — The Crypto Exchange Podcast
Will Resiliency Carry the Digital Asset Sector Through 2024: Federal Legislative Developments and OFAC Consent Orders — The Crypto Exchange Podcast
Compliance into the Weeds: The WACKO Enforcement Action Involving BF Borgers
Meeting the Proposed SEC Climate Disclosure Requirements
Understanding the Whistleblower Pilot Program in the Southern District of New York
2 Gurus Talk Compliance: Episode 26 – The Compliance Week Wrap Up Edition
What do the SolarWinds ruling and other recent developments mean for the future of the SEC’s cyber regulatory program? Will the SEC’s “lack of moderation” result in “violent ends” for its cyber agenda? Or will the current...more
This Holland & Knight blog post is the second installment in a two-part series that examines the challenges to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) charges in its landmark case against SolarWinds Corp....more
On July 18, 2024, a New York federal judge dismissed most of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s ("SEC") claims against SolarWinds Corp. ("SolarWinds" or the "Company") and its Chief Information Security Officer...more
On July 18, 2024, District Court Judge Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York issued his 107-page opinion and order dismissing most – but not all – of the landmark allegations of the SEC against SolarWinds Corp. and...more
On July 18, a New York federal judge threw out most of the SEC’s claims brought against both SolarWinds Corp. and the company’s chief information security officer (CISO), Timothy Brown....more
On July 18, Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York issued a lengthy order dismissing the majority of the SEC’s enforcement case against SolarWinds Corporation (SolarWinds) and its CISO, Timothy Brown. The...more
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. that pure omissions are not actionable under Rule 10b-5(b), promulgated by the US Securities...more
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., unanimously held that pure omissions cannot form the basis of a securities fraud claim under Rule 10b-5(b) of the Securities...more
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split and limited the scope of omissions liability under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(b). The decision will limit the scope of...more
On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, that “pure omissions” made in required disclosures do not...more
The United States Supreme Court in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., No. 22-1165, ruled that a corporation is not liable under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 for...more
A company cannot be sued by private parties under Rule 10b-5(b) for a “pure omission” but can be liable for omissions that render other statements misleading. “Pure omissions” cannot be attacked in private 10b-5(b)...more
On April 12, a unanimous Supreme Court held in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. that material omissions are actionable under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and its enabling SEC Rule 10b-5 only if the...more
On April 12, 2024, the US Supreme Court reversed the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision in Macquarie v. Moab Partners and held that a pure omission cannot form the basis of a securities fraud claim under...more
Answering a precise question increasingly raised by securities fraud plaintiffs, the United States Supreme Court held in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners that a failure to disclose information cannot support a...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that pure silence in MD&A statements are not actionable in shareholder securities fraud cases. The case is important for issuers and shareholders alike for several reasons: -...more
On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that, in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement, a failure to disclose information required by Item 303 of Regulation S-K (“Item 303”) does not support a...more
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. et al v. Moab Partners, L.P., et al. which held that omissions, by themselves, are not subject to private rights...more
In a unanimous decision issued on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a corporation’s failure to disclose information regarding known trends or uncertainties, required by SEC regulation, cannot be the basis for private...more
SEC Rule 10b-5(b) makes it unlawful for issuers to make false statements or “to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made...not misleading.” In addition to ensuring the truth of statements,...more
In a narrow but potentially significant decision, the Supreme Court has held that securities-fraud plaintiffs cannot recover based on a “pure omission” from a company’s public statements under the most common legal basis for...more
On April 12, a unanimous Supreme Court held that issuers are not liable under Rule 10b-5(b) for “pure omissions.” The Court’s decision ends a long-standing circuit split and, most importantly for public companies, narrows the...more
In Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., No. 22-1165, 601 U.S. ___ (April 12, 2024), the United States Supreme Court held that “pure omissions are not actionable” for securities fraud asserted specifically...more
On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., No. 22-1165, 601 U.S. __ (Apr. 12, 2024), in which the Court held that pure omissions are not actionable...more