Haimavathi Marlier, Jina Choi, and Michael Birnbaum are Partners at Morrison & Foerster LLP. This post is based on their Morrison & Foerster memorandum.
In order to provide an overview for busy in-house counsel and compliance professionals, we summarize below some of the most important SEC enforcement developments from the past month, which was an active one as the SEC Division of Enforcement closed out its fiscal year. This month we examine:
- A rare Regulation FD action that could be headed to a jury trial;
- Charges against a broker-dealer and investment adviser for failing to guard 15 million customers’ personally identifiable information, or “PII”;
- An insider trading action involving an allegedly improper Rule 10b5-1 plan;
- A significant negligence settlement against a major aerospace company and its former CEO for failing to disclose safety issues in public statements regarding airplane crashes; and
- A settlement with 16 registrants assessing penalties totaling more than $1 billion for employees’ use of off-channel, and therefore unpreserved, communications to conduct firm business.
1. Reg FD Litigation Appears to Be Headed to Trial After SDNY Judge Dismisses Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment
On September 8, 2022, Judge Engelmayer of SDNY denied cross-motions for summary judgment in SEC v. AT&T, Inc. et al. and set a Reg FD litigation on a course to trial for the first time. As discussed in detail in MoFo’s recent client alert, in March 2021, the SEC filed a complaint against AT&T and three investor relations (IR) executives alleging violations of Reg FD, which prohibits a public company from providing selective disclosures of MNPI to particular persons outside the company, without also disclosing such information to the public. The SEC alleged that, in March and April of 2016, AT&T and members of its IR department violated Reg FD by disclosing AT&T’s “projected and actual financial results” to “stock analysts from approximately 20 Wall Street firms on a one-on-one basis” in an effort to lower consensus revenue estimates for Q1 2016 so that AT&T would not fall short. According to the complaint, AT&T’s conduct came on the heels of missed consensus revenue estimates in two of the previous three quarters. As alleged, AT&T’s selective disclosures of MNPI prompted these analysts to significantly reduce their revenue estimates for Q1 2016, and AT&T ended up exceeding these projections by 0.1%.