Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Public Company Web Sites: A Marketing Tool Subject To Securities Laws
Following the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, disclosures by public companies via their Web sites are increasingly required or encouraged. With the implementation of these new rules and the growth of the Internet, investors, as well as prospective investors, increasingly are relying upon a company's Web site for investment information. Public companies should recognize the value of their Web sites as marketing and investor-relations tools, subject to the boundaries of applicable legal standards and constraints.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has stated that “[t]he federal securities laws apply in the same manner to the content of [companies'] Web sites as to any other statements made by or attributable to them.” For example, Web site content that is inaccurate or misleading may cause the company to be found liable to an investor who incurred a loss by buying or selling the stock of the company in reliance upon such content. Additionally, companies and their officers may be held criminally liable for misleading or false information posted on the company's Web site. Last year, the CEO of eConnect was sentenced to over 8 years in federal prison after pleading guilty to three counts of securities fraud and one count of criminal contempt. The SEC had charged eConnect and its CEO with securities fraud in connection with a scheme to artificially inflate eConnect's stock price using, among various techniques, false statements posted on its Web site. According to the SEC, during the period when the false statements were posted on the Web site, eConnect's stock increased by over 500%.
Under Scrutiny
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?