Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit analyzed the "scienter" requirement that a shareholder must meet to prevail under the federal securities laws in showing that the company or its executives fraudulently induced the shareholder to buy or retain shares. KBC Asset Management v. DXC Technology Co., No. 20-1718 (4th Cir., Dec. 1, 2021). The company or executives act with "scienter" only when they have a certain fraudulent state of mind, intending to mislead or being extremely careless about misleading shareholders. As the Fourth Circuit decision shows, shareholders must meet a high bar in demonstrating scienter to avoid early dismissal of the case. The decision also shows the fact-intensive approach courts use to distinguish fraudulent statements from those that, even if mistaken, were made innocently.
DXC is a publicly traded IT company. Throughout 2017, the company successfully used cost-cutting measures to achieve its financial goals. In February 2018, DXC issued a press release touting its continued financial success. By November 2018, however, it had revised its projected revenue guidance to shareholders downward by around $800 million. The company's share price dropped as a result.
The plaintiffs in this case were a group of shareholders who had acquired shares in DXC between February and November 2018. The plaintiffs alleged that the company knew, contrary to its public statements in February 2018, that its cost-cutting measures during the course of 2018 would inhibit its ability to generate revenue. The plaintiffs claimed DXC and its two principal executives fraudulently induced the plaintiffs to acquire stock through its material misstatements and omissions about the company's financial health. The plaintiffs brought federal securities fraud claims against the company and the two executives under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
Businesses have long embraced the use of computer technology in the workplace as a means of improving efficiency and productivity of their operations. In recent years, businesses have incorporated artificial intelligence and other automated and algorithmic technologies into their computer systems. This article provides an overview of the federal regulatory guidance and the state and local rules in place so far and suggests ways in which employers may wish to address these developments with policies and practices to reduce legal risk.
This two-part article dives into the massive shifts AI is bringing to Google Search and SEO and why traditional searches are no longer part of the solution for marketers. It’s not theoretical, it’s happening, and firms that adapt will come out ahead.
For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children.
In an era where the workplace is constantly evolving, law firms face unique challenges and opportunities in facilities management, real estate, and design. Across the industry, firms are reevaluating their office spaces to adapt to hybrid work models, prioritize collaboration, and enhance employee experience. Trends such as flexible seating, technology-driven planning, and the creation of multifunctional spaces are shaping the future of law firm offices.
Protection against unauthorized model distillation is an emerging issue within the longstanding theme of safeguarding intellectual property. This article examines the legal protections available under the current legal framework and explore why patents may serve as a crucial safeguard against unauthorized distillation.