We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 38

International Regulatory Update 23-27 September 2013

  • Clifford Chance LLP
  • -
  • Australia, China, European Union, Germany, Global, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, United Kingdom, USA
  • -
  • October 1 2013

The UK government has launched a legal challenge with the European Courts of Justice (ECJ) on the remuneration provisions under the Capital

Accounting fraud verdict is partially affirmed

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 5 2013

On July 29th, the Eighth Circuit affirmed, in part, a jury's accounting fraud verdict in the SEC's enforcement action against former infoUSA CFO

Insider trading and determinations by the company

  • Dorsey & Whitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 22 2012

In SEC v. Obus, Docket No. 10-4749 (2nd Cir. Decided Sept. 6, 2012) the Circuit Court found that the defendants could be held liable for insider trading despite the fact that the company concluded they had not breached any duty

Saved by the Supreme Court from securities liability? Maybe not

  • Kaye Scholer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 13 2012

In Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders,1 the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant must be the actual “maker” of a material misstatement or omission statement to be found primarily liable for securities fraud

How corporate officials can get a good night’s sleep despite current SEC enforcement trends

  • Dorsey & Whitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 9 2012

This is the second in a series discussing new trends in SEC enforcement which impact corporate directors and officers and steps that can be taken to avoid future liability

The Second Circuit reinstates a securities fraud suit against Grant Thornton involving its audit of Winstar Communications’ 1999 financial statements

  • Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 30 2012

On July 19, 2012, the Second Circuit vacated a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of Grant Thornton LLP (“GT”) in a securities fraud action arising from GT’s audit of Winstar Communications, Inc.’s 1999 financial statements

The First Circuit affirms dismissal of a securities fraud suit against Boston Scientific Corporation

  • Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 30 2012

On July 12, 2012, the First Circuit affirmed dismissal of a securities fraud suit alleging that Boston Scientific Corporation and several of its officers made materially misleading statements in 2009 and 2010 in violation of Section 10(b

District court rejects argument that Investment Advisers Act cannot be applied extraterritorially

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 18 2012

The Securities and Exchange Commission brought a complaint against the former Chief Financial Officer of a now defunct investment adviser seeking enforcement of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (IAA

Effective compliance program helps investment bank avoid FCPA criminal charges

  • Baker & McKenzie
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 14 2012

When a former Morgan Stanley Managing Director pled guilty recently to a criminal violation of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"), the effectiveness of the bank's pre-existing anti-corruption compliance program convinced enforcers at the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") not to charge the bank itself

The SEC requires a CEO to repay incentive-based compensation after accounting staffers’ embezzlement causes company restatement

  • Jenner & Block
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 31 2012

On October 24, 2011, the SEC announced that it had filed a settled civil enforcement action requiring, under Section 304 of Sarbanes-Oxley, the CEO of a public company to repay all of his cash and equity-based bonus compensation received for three years the company restated