Yearly Archives: 2016

Do You Have to Disclose a Government Investigation?

Deborah S. Birnbach is a partner in the Litigation & White Collar Defense Group at Goodwin Procter LLP. This post is based on a Goodwin Procter publication by Ms. Birnbach and Michael T. Jones.

After receiving an inquiry from a government agency, such as a subpoena, a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”), or an informal request for information, public companies ask whether they must disclose publicly that they may be under investigation. A corollary question to public disclosure is how broadly to disclose internally, to lenders, or to D&O insurers.

The standards for disclosing government investigations are not straightforward, due in part to an absence of cases and SEC interpretive guidance providing meaningful direction on this topic under the securities laws. As a result, disclosure practices vary. Companies sometimes disclose investigations upon receipt of a subpoena or CID, some wait until an intermediate stage after the investigation progresses, and some wait until the SEC advises the company that it tentatively decided to recommend an enforcement action by sending the company a “Wells” notice [1] or until the investigation is otherwise nearing conclusion. However, a few recent cases out of federal courts in the Southern District of New York and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in California provide some additional guidance for companies navigating this issue.

READ MORE »

Institutional Investors and Trends in Board Refreshment

Cam C. Hoang is a Partner at Dorsey & Whitney LLP. This article is based on a Dorsey & Whitney memo by Ms. Hoang, Gary Tygesson, and Ime Ibok.

As many institutional investors have concluded, prevailing governance policies and practices have not produced desired board refreshment, which these investors would support in order to strengthen expertise, promote diversity and provide fresh perspectives in the board room. At the same time, companies and investors alike appreciate that term and age limits, as they have been typically applied, may not be the solutions, because they force the arbitrary retirement of valuable directors.

READ MORE »

Takings Claims in the Aftermath of the Financial Crisis

Julia D. Mahoney is the John S. Battle Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. This post is based on Professor Mahoney’s recent article, Takings, Legitimacy, and Emergency Action: Lessons from the Financial Crisis of 2008, published in the George Mason Law Review.

In times of crisis, governments do things that fall outside—sometimes far outside—the norm and reduce or destroy the value of resources held by firms and individuals. Aggrieved owners may then sue the government, arguing that they are entitled to relief because the public action complained of amounts to a taking of their property. The financial crisis of 2008 and its aftermath have generated a cascade of such lawsuits, including highly publicized ones involving equity holders of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and American International Group, Inc.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: April 1–April 7, 2016


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of April 1, 2016 to April 7, 2016.

SEC Enforcement of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting












ValueAct: Activist Use of HSR Act’s “Passive Investor” Exemption

Daniel A. Neff is co-chairman of the Executive Committee and partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; David A. Katz is a partner specializing in the areas of mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance and activism, and crisis management at Wachtell Lipton; and Nelson O. Fitts is a partner in the Antitrust Department at Wachtell Lipton. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton memorandum by Messrs. Neff, Katz, and Fitts. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Law and Economics of Blockholder Disclosure by Lucian Bebchuk and Robert J. Jackson Jr. (discussed on the Forum here), and Pre-Disclosure Accumulations by Activist Investors: Evidence and Policy by Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, Robert J. Jackson Jr., and Wei Jiang.

[On April 4, 2016,] the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that two ValueAct Capital funds repeatedly violated the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act in amassing large equity positions in two oilfield services companies which have agreed to merge. The DOJ’s complaint alleges that ValueAct’s actions and statements of intention—including repeatedly meeting with both management teams, lobbying other shareholders to vote in favor of the proposed merger, promoting specific integration plans and executive compensation strategies, and proposing operational and strategic changes at the company to be acquired—were inconsistent with investment-only intent. The DOJ’s complaint also took the extraordinary step of naming the ValueAct funds’ general partner as a defendant.

READ MORE »

Does ValueAct Have Implications for Institutional Shareholders?

Arthur F. Golden is the senior partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. This post is based on a Davis Polk publication by Mr. Golden, Arthur J. Burke, Joel M. Cohen, Ronan P. Harty, and Thomas J. Reid.

[On April 4, 2016,] the U.S. Department of Justice brought a civil action against ValueAct for failing to comply with the waiting period requirements under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (the “HSR Act”) with respect to its purchases of shares of Halliburton Company and Baker Hughes Incorporated. The DOJ’s suit seeks a civil penalty of at least $19 million from ValueAct. (In November 2014, Halliburton entered into an agreement to purchase Baker Hughes; the transaction is pending.)

The DOJ claims that ValueAct’s purchases of Halliburton and Baker Hughes shares “did not qualify for the narrow exemption from the requirements of the HSR Act for acquisitions made solely for the purpose of investment” because ValueAct “planned from the outset to take steps to influence the business decisions of both companies, and met frequently with executives of both companies to execute those plans.”

READ MORE »

The Source of Information in Prices and Investment-Price Sensitivity

Alex Edmans is Professor of Finance at London Business School. This post is based on an article authored by Professor Edmans and Sudarshan Jayaraman, Associate Professor of Accounting at the University of Rochester.

In our paper, The Source of Information in Prices and Investment-Price Sensitivity, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we show that real decisions depend not only on the total amount of information in prices, but the source of this information—a manager learns from prices when they contain information not possessed by him.

READ MORE »

Protecting Investors in an Innovative Financial Marketplace

Mary Jo White is Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The following post is based on Chair White’s recent Keynote Address at the SEC and Stanford Rock Center’s Silicon Valley Initiative; the complete text, including footnotes, is available here. The views expressed in this post are those of Chair White and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

Thank you Jina [Choi] for that kind introduction and for your leadership of the San Francisco Regional Office. It is always good to be back at Stanford, and it is an honor to speak at the SEC’s and Rock Center’s Silicon Valley Initiative. This is an important event that brings together regulators, academics, lawyers and entrepreneurs to discuss the issues impacting the start-up, venture capital and private equity worlds rooted here in this cutting edge center of technological innovation. It is essential that the Commission fully engage with Silicon Valley, and participants in this important market across the country, so that we can better understand the unique features of its investors and financings. This Valley-SEC dialogue, which I hope becomes a permanent fixture, can only make the Commission a more effective regulator and better able to protect all investors.

READ MORE »

Securities Class Action Settlements: 2015 Review

Laura E. Simmons is a senior advisor in the Washington, D.C. office of Cornerstone Research. This post is based on a Cornerstone publication by Ms. Simmons, Laarni T. Bulan, and Ellen M. Ryan. The complete publication is available here.

There were 80 securities class action settlements approved in 2015, the highest number since 2010, according to a new report from Cornerstone Research. The report, Securities Class Action Settlements—2015 Review and Analysis, shows that total settlement dollars rose to more than $3 billion, an increase of 184 percent over the historic low in 2014.

The surge in securities class action settlements in 2015 can be attributed in part to three consecutive year-over-year increases in the number of case filings. The increases in case filings may suggest that higher numbers of settlements will persist in the near future. While settlement volume fluctuates from year to year, the size of the typical settlement tends to remain fairly consistent. READ MORE »

The Fund Director in 2016

Mary Jo White is Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The following post is based on Chair White’s recent Keynote Address at the Mutual Fund Directors Forum 2016 Policy Conference; the complete text, including footnotes, is available here. The views expressed in this post are those of Chair White and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

From the perspective of the SEC’s mission to protect investors, there could hardly be anything more important than strong mutual fund boards when more than 53 million households—approximately 43 percent of all U.S. households—owned mutual funds in 2015. Mutual fund investors are like anyone else—they find their time consumed by jobs, family obligations, and the myriad of other priorities we face in today’s world. They are lucky if they can make it to the gym in their spare time. So, to expect most investors to closely follow the performance of their fund investments, let alone their fee structure, management changes and investment risks, would be unrealistic. And, of course, it is fund directors, not fund investors, who have access to the information and critical participants, like the fund adviser, that makes strong and meaningful oversight possible.

READ MORE »

Page 62 of 78
1 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 78