Yearly Archives: 2024

SEC Enforcement – Top Seven Developments from June 2024

Adam AdertonElizabeth P. Gray and A. Kristina Littman are Partners at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. This post is based on a Willkie memorandum by Mr. Aderton, Ms. Gray, Ms. Littman, and Erik Holmvik.

In June, four blockbuster court decisions were issued that will reshape the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (the “SEC” or “Commission”) exercise of its authority in important ways. At the same time, regular business continued at the SEC as it brought a number of enforcement actions spanning several hot-button areas, including cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and the registered investment adviser Marketing Rule. In this alert, we briefly summarize the top seven securities enforcement and litigation developments from the last month, including:

  • Two seismic Supreme Court decisions overruling Chevron deference and reshaping administrative law;
  • The Supreme Court’s recent decision in SEC v. Jarkesy;
  • The Fifth Circuit’s ruling vacating the SEC’s new private fund rules;
  • A novel action applying Exchange Act Section 13(b)(2)(B) in the cybersecurity context;
  • An action targeting misstatements made by issuer regarding its use of artificial intelligence;
  • A Marketing Rule action arising from misleading performance advertisements; and
  • The $4.5 billion penalty agreed to by Terraform Labs and its founder following their April fraud verdict.

READ MORE »

Data Breach Securities Class Actions: Record Settlements and Investor Claims on the Rise

David Malmstrom is a Manager at Broadridge. This post is based on his Broadridge memorandum.

Data Breach Securities Class Actions: Record Settlements and Investor Claims on the Rise

Data breach related securities class action filings are on the rise.[1] These lawsuits are based on allegations that companies misrepresented or misled investors about cybersecurity events, such as data breaches or security vulnerabilities, causing stock prices to fall when the truth is revealed. Data breaches have increased steadily since 2020[2] and this surge in breaches and cybersecurity incidents has led to more shareholders filing securities class action claims. This year we have witnessed significant settlements, including three of the top ten largest data breach related securities class action settlements, totaling $560 million.

READ MORE »

Navigating the Nuances of Board Diversity in NASDAQ-Listed Companies

Lawrence Cunningham is the incoming Director of the University of Delaware’s John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance.

In recent years, a push for diversity on corporate boards gained momentum, culminating in NASDAQ’s new listing rules that require companies to disclose the composition of their boards in terms of certain forms of diversity—gender, race and sexual orientation—and disclose whether they have one or more such directors or explain why not.

In line with other social trends, boards have been diversifying and most have had no trouble checking the NASDAQ rule’s box. The interesting cases are the small number that have instead opted to explain why they do not meet NASDAQ’s diversity matrix.

Bloomberg’s Andrew Ramonas scoured the current 2024 proxy statements of numerous companies and found several that provide a glimpse into the complexities companies face in this area that are often unappreciated and are worthy of consideration.

READ MORE »

Bridging the gap: Comparing board and C-suite perspectives

Catie Hall and Carin Robinson are Directors at the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Governance Insights Center. This post is based on their PwC memorandum.

How effective is the board? It depends on who you ask

In a time of change for many organizations, two recent PwC surveys show that boards and the C-suite don’t always see eye-to-eye on some key topics. We compared the results of our  Annual Corporate Directors Survey (ACDS) and Board effectiveness: A survey of the C-suite. The findings show that directors and executives have different views on topics such as board effectiveness, composition, refreshment, board understanding and knowledge of key business risks, and the ability of boards to guide their companies through a time of crisis.

We’ve identified five areas where directors’ views differ substantially from those in the C-suite. Boards should view each of these as an opportunity for productive discussion that can ultimately strengthen the relationship between them and management.

READ MORE »

California in Spotlight as Massachusetts Avoids Bill Targeting Private Equity in Healthcare

Danielle Fortier, Alexis Bortniker, and Sonny Allison are Partners at at Cooley LLP. This post is based on their Cooley memorandum.

The Massachusetts legislative session for 2024 has come to a close without the passage of a bill that would have targeted private equity in healthcare. Introduced in May 2024, Massachusetts House Bill (HB) 4653 proposed to expand the reach of the Health Policy Commission (HPC) by requiring notice to the HPC of any transactions involving a private equity fund investing in a provider organization, and that same bill was revised by the Massachusetts Senate in July as Senate Bill (SB) 2871.

SB 2871 made substantial changes to the House version, including making any transactions with private equity funds reviewable to assess costs and market impacts, as well as granting the HPC the ability to make adjustments to transactions. It also proposed limiting what a management services company could do for an affiliated friendly PC (professional corporation), with potentially significant impacts to the corporate structure that private equity funds historically have relied on to invest in provider organizations in states with restrictions on the ownership of healthcare practices, such as Massachusetts.

The end of the Massachusetts legislative session without the passage of a bill on this matter comes as a reprieve in a moment of escalating tension for investors in the healthcare sector.

READ MORE »

Post-Doctoral and Graduate Corporate Governance Fellowships


More from:

The Program on Corporate Governance at Harvard Law School (HLS) is pleased to announce that it is seeking applications from highly qualified candidates who are interested in working with the Program as Post-Doctoral or Doctoral Corporate Governance Fellows.

Applications are considered on a rolling basis, and the start date is flexible and can be negotiated based on applicant and Program needs. Appointments are commonly for one year, but the appointment period can be extended for additional one-year period/s contingent on business and funding.

Candidates should have a law degree from a law school in the United States or abroad. Candidates still pursuing a doctoral degree are eligible so long as they will have completed their program’s coursework requirements by the time they begin their fellowship period.

During the term of their appointment, Fellows will be in residence at HLS and will be required to work on research and other activities of the Program, depending on their skills, interests, and Program needs. The position includes a competitive fellowship salary and Harvard University benefits. Fellows will also be able to spend time on their own projects.

Applicants should have an interest in corporate governance and in academic or policy research in this field. Former Fellows of the Program currently teach in many leading law schools in the U.S. and abroad (e.g., Scott Hirst (BU), Robert Jackson (NYU), Marcel Kahan (NYU), Kobi Kastiel (Tel-Aviv), Yaron Nili (Duke), Roberto Tallarita (Harvard) and Holger Spamann (Harvard)).

Interested candidates should submit a CV, a writing sample, and a cover letter to the coordinator of the Program, at [email protected]. The cover letter should describe the candidate’s experience, reasons for seeking the position, career plans, and the period during which they would like to work with the Program.

Insider Trading by Other Means

Nejat Seyhun is the Jerome B. and Eilene M. York Professor of Business Administration and Professor of Finance at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business. This post is based on a recent article forthcoming in the Harvard Business Law Review by Professor Seyhun, Dr. Sureyya Burcu Avci, Professor Cindy A. Schipani, and Professor Andrew Verstein.

For more than thirty years, one of the most prevalent strategies for insider trading has gone undetected and unaddressed. Our research uncovers the techniques by which executives and directors sell overvalued stock worth more than $100 billion per year, shifting losses to ordinary retail investors, without ever running the risk of prosecution or civil litigation.  The technique by which insider do this is to conceal and miscode their suspicious trades by calling them “Other” disposition.  Even though these trades are reported, the “Other” designation is confusing to the investing public, regulators and policy makers.  This allows insiders to evade both detection and prosecution.

READ MORE »

The 2024 Proxy Season in 3 Charts

Lindsey Stewart is Director of Investment Stewardship Research at Morningstar, Inc. This post is based on his Morningstar memorandum.

Now that the 2024 proxy-voting season is over, it’s time to zoom out, look at the major trends for the proxy-voting year that just ended, and assess what they could mean for the future. Most US asset managers have still yet to publish their voting records for the 2024 proxy year (which closed on June 30).

But even with the data still rolling in, we’re already able to identify some key marketwide themes among environmental, social, and governance topics. We’ve picked out three. We’ll follow up with a deeper dive into hidden trends. (If you’d like to see Morningstar’s coverage of proxy season, read this.)

  1. ESG shareholder resolutions are still growing in number, but for the first time, the growth is primarily driven by “anti-ESG” proponents. Overall support for ESG proposals stayed flat in 2024 at 23%.
  2. Resolutions seeking to bolster shareholder rights were popular, leading to a rebound in support for governance-focused proposals, from 30% in the 2023 proxy year to 35% this year. The decline in shareholder support for environmental and social resolutions continued in 2024, but it appears to be slowing. Average support for environmental and social resolutions fell to 16% this year from 19% in the 2023 proxy year.

READ MORE »

Firm Boundaries and Voluntary Disclosure

John D. Kepler is an Associate Professor of Accounting at Stanford Graduate School of Business. This post is based on an article recently published in The Accounting Review by Professor Kepler, Professor Lynn Linghuan Wang, Professor Thomas Bourveau, and Professor Guoman She

A long literature examines the role of firms’ voluntary disclosures in facilitating monitoring and valuation by capital providers or withholding public information from competitors. However, little is known about how firms use their disclosures to coordinate with non-investor stakeholders. One particularly important set of non-investor stakeholders consists of firms’ supply chain partners, which are particularly prone to information-related agency conflicts. We study how vertical integration, as an alternative to arm’s length contracting, shapes firms’ voluntary disclosure of information that can be useful for resolving these agency conflicts with supply chain partners.

Theoretical studies suggest that public disclosure can facilitate contracting relationships, both by adding credibility to private communications and signaling to contracting partners who lack credible private communication channels. For example, Ferreira and Rezende (2007) consider how disclosing a firm’s strategy can serve as a commitment device for managers to maintain their strategic plans, which allows supply chain partners to invest according to the disclosing firm’s strategic commitments. The notion that firms have incentives to disclose information publicly is predicated on firms’ inability to privately communicate credibly with their current and potential suppliers and customers; otherwise, public disclosure would be redundant and would not facilitate coordination. While supply chain partners can exchange information privately (e.g., about sales expectations, new product developments, etc.), public information can facilitate communication between partners to the extent the disclosure is considered more credible given the costs resulting from untruthful public disclosure (e.g., legal fines).

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: August 9-15, 2024


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of August 9-15, 2024

A Proposal For Improving Trust In The Special Litigation Committee Process


Significant Amendments to the DGCL Are Set to Become Effective


Under Pressure—Rethinking Board Practices


Imputing Proxy Advisor Recommendations


Special Committee Midyear Report


The short-termism trap: Catering to informed investors with limited horizons


DOJ Launches Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program


Do Investors Care about Biodiversity?


From Commitment to Implementation – An Analysis of Corporate Climate Actions


Dual Class Contracting


Shopify and the Problem of Shareholder “Approval” at Multi-Class Companies


Page 27 of 78
1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 78