Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
At a time when climate change has been referred to by the President of the United States as our "existential crisis," and investors are pouring trillions of dollars into green, sustainable funds, more and more companies and investment funds are touting their climate and environmental bona fides. In April of this year, Mastercard announced that it was going to link all employee bonuses to meeting ESG (environmental, social and governance) goals. See, "Mastercard (MA) to Tie All Employee Bonuses to Meeting ESG Goals," Bloomberg (April 19, 2022). Similarly, in March of this year, Goldman Sachs announced that directors at companies in which Goldman invests who fail to provide sufficient climate risk disclosure are at risk of being voted out by Goldman.
These are important and laudable steps. But as evidenced by the SEC's recent activities and announcements, doing well while doing good carries with it some risks.
Issuers and other registrants with the SEC are required, in their SEC filings, including their annual reports, to disclose material information; that is, information that a reasonable investor would consider important in deciding how to vote or make an investment decision, or would have altered the total mix of available information. See, e.g., Basic v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 231 (1988). Failure to do so can result in SEC action and in the most egregious cases a referral to the DOJ who may decide to prosecute. Similarly, false statements or a material omission in a company's marketing materials, analyst calls or other interactions with shareholders or potential investors can result in similar enforcement actions, not to mention shareholder suits. All one has to look to is the recent prosecution of Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes.
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
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 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.
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.
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?
Making partner isn't cheap, and the cost is more than just the years of hard work and stress that associates put in as they reach for the brass ring.