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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 199

What is a “Personal Benefit” for Insider Trading Tippee Liability?
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • March 9 2016

On February 29, 2016, in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Payton et al, a jury found two stockbrokers liable for trading on confidential tips


Supreme Court Holds That “Actual Fraud” Under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code May Include Fraudulent Transfers That Occur Without False Representations
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • June 20 2016

On May 16, 2016, the United States Supreme Court in Husky International Electronics v. Ritz held that the phrase “actual fraud” under section


Ninth Circuit Permits SEC to Assert Standalone Claim for False Sarbanes-Oxley Certification and Confirms Disgorgement Remedy Against CEO and CFO Despite Lack of Personal Involvement In Underlying Misconduct
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • September 12 2016

In Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jensen, No. 14-55221, 2016 WL 4537377 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the


Dodd-Frank whistleblower protection: for America only
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • November 13 2013

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has held that the whistleblower protection provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act do not


Who’s a “foreign official”? Supreme Court could clarify key FCPA term
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • September 18 2014

On August 14, 2014, Joel Esquenazi and Carlos Rodriguez filed a Petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking clarification of


Second Circuit holds that federal common law prohibits trading by insiders of a Cayman Islands corporation while in possession of material nonpublic information
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • Cayman Islands, USA
  • February 4 2014

In Steginsky v. Xcelera Inc., Nos. 13-1327-cv, 13-1892-cv, 2014 WL 274419 (2d Cir. Jan. 27, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second


Do your diligence - commercial division finds that sophisticated parties may not justifiably rely on alleged misrepresentations when information is readily accessible
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • October 16 2012

In Karfunkel v. Sassower, No. 6022442009 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 12, 2012), Judge Peter O. Sherwood granted a motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim of civil fraud for lack of both scienter and justifiable reliance, holding that sophisticated parties may not justifiably rely on alleged fraudulent misrepresentations when accurate information is readily accessible


Profit counting - the Pfizer FCPA settlement
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • August 27 2012

On Aug. 8, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced agreements with the drug manufacturer Pfizer Inc. to settle allegations that a Pfizer subsidiary had paid bribes to non-U.S. doctors and health care system personnel in exchange for prescribing Pfizer products


Even the bagman: foreign agent sentenced to thirty month prison term for FCPA violations
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • January 17 2012

On December 22, 2011, Ousama Naaman, a former agent for Innospec Inc., was sentenced to serve 30 months in prison and pay a fine of $250,000 following his guilty plea to charges of violating the FCPA and conspiracy to violate the FCPA, among others


Ninth Circuit holds that district courts may reject, but may not select, lead plaintiffs' counsel in class actions brought under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • November 11 2009

In In re Cohen, No. 09-70378, 2009 WL 3681701 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed an order by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that rejected co-lead plaintiff’s selection of counsel and instead appointed a firm selected by the district court