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 205

Delaware Court Affirms Utility of Non-Reliance Clause in Dismissing Fraud Claim
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • February 22 2017

In IAC Search, LLC v. Conversant LLC (fka ValueClick, Inc.), 2016 WL 6995363 (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2016), the Delaware Court of Chancery provided a


U.S. Supreme Court Confirms that a Corporate Insider Receives a “Personal Benefit” by Providing Confidential Information to a Trading Relative or Friend, Affirming Conviction for Insider Trading
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • December 9 2016

In Salman v. United States, No. 15-628, 580 U.S. ___, 2016 WL 7078448 (2016), the United States Supreme Court (Alito, J.) unanimously affirmed the


Eleventh Circuit Holds That a Corporation Is Not Distinct From Its Agents For Purposes of a RICO Enterprise, Following Sister Circuits
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • September 16 2016

In Ray v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 15-13792, 2016 WL 4578347 (11th Cir. Sept. 2, 2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit


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


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


Eighth Circuit Reverses District Court for Ignoring Price-Impact Evidence That Rebutted the Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption and Defeated Class Certification
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • May 6 2016

In IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 14-3178 (8th Cir. Apr. 12, 2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit


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


The Benefit of the Doubt: SEC Scores an Insider Trading Win Despite Newman’s Personal Benefit Requirement
  • 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


Ninth Circuit severely limits “rogue employee” exception for corporations in securities fraud cases
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • November 23 2015

In an issue of first impression, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a rogue corporate officer's fraudulent intent can be imputed


The Schrems decision: how the end of Safe Harbor affects your FCPA compliance plan
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • European Union, USA
  • November 12 2015

Like a needle to a balloon, the Schrems decision has drastically altered the data privacy landscape. Who is affected? Everyone - consumers