Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Disclosure of Investigations: Whether and When for Public Companies
You are the general counsel of a mid-cap company trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Because of your firm's international work, you have instituted a global anti-corruption compliance program, complete with a whistleblower hotline. Sunday night, an anonymous call comes in on the hotline. The manager of your Nigerian subsidiary has been inviting the tax minister on weekly yacht cruises in exchange for better tax treatment. Being the good corporate citizen you are, you quickly commence an internal investigation. On Monday afternoon, the Securities and Exchange Commission sends a document request and tells you it has opened an informal investigation.
Do you have to disclose to your shareholders the whistleblower's allegation, your internal investigation and/or the SEC's document request? What if there were a Formal Order of Investigation? Or a Wells Notice? What if the Nigerian business constitutes less than 1% of your company's revenue? Or there are price-fixing allegations? Or the minister appears on the Specially Designated Nationals list?
The Securities Laws and Regulations
Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)) and the accompanying rules obligate issuers to file periodic reports with information that is accurate and not misleading. Failure to do so can result in the SEC charging a company with making material false statements or material omissions in violation of sections 17(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77q(a)(2) and (a)(3)) or Rule 10b-5 (17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5), the latter requiring a showing of scienter, the former requiring nothing more than mere negligence. An omission is material where there is "a substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the total mix of information made available." In re Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. Sec. Litig., 165 F. Supp. 3d 1, 10-11 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); In re UBS AG Sec. Litig., No. 07-cv-11225, 2012 WL 4471265, at 31 (materiality analysis requires a showing of actual materiality, not the mere possibility that an investigation may be material).
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
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.
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.
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.
Role and Responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders
Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?