SEC Commissioner Michael Piwowar recently said that the SEC is open to allowing companies that are going public to provide for mandatory shareholder arbitration in their corporate charters. Piwowar’s remarks have prompted a firestorm of discussion of the issue of mandatory arbitration of securities class actions, including helpful analyses by Alison Frankel and Kevin LaCroix
Following is an article I wrote for Law360, which gave me permission to republish it here:
Among securities litigators, there is no consensus about the importance of developments in securities and corporate governance litigation. For some, a Supreme Court decision is always supreme. For others, a major change in a legal standard is the most…
The history of securities litigation is marked by particular types of cases that come in waves:
- the IPO laddering cases, which involved more than 300 issuers and their underwriters;
- the Sarbanes-Oxley era “corporate scandal” cases, which involved massive litigation against Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Adelphia, HealthSouth, and others;
- the mutual fund market timing cases;
- the stock
Following is an article we wrote for Law360, which gave us permission to republish it here:
The coming year promises to be a pivotal one in the world of securities and corporate governance litigation. In particular, there are five developing issues we are watching that have the greatest potential to significantly increase or decrease the…
Over the past three years, I’ve been outspoken about the need for better board oversight of cyber security, as well as the need for better cyber security disclosure. The severity of the cyber threat is so significant to companies, as well as to the nation’s economy and security, that boards have no choice but to…
This year will be remembered as the year of the Super Bowl of securities litigation, Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (“Halliburton II”), 134 S. Ct. 2398 (2014), the case that finally gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to overrule the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, established in 1988 in Basic v.
At long last, the United States Supreme Court is going to address the viability and/or prerequisites of the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance established by the Court in 1988 in Basic v. Levinson. Securities litigators, on both sides of the aisle, are understandably anxious, because our entire industry is about to change – either a…
Cyber security is top of mind for companies, and cyber-security oversight is top of mind for corporate directors. I recently co-moderated a panel discussion for directors on board oversight of cyber security and cyber-security disclosures. I thought I’d share my thoughts on some of the key issues.
What are the board’s fiduciary duties in the…
Last Tuesday, new SEC Chairman Mary Jo White said at The Wall Street Journal’s annual CFO Network Event that the SEC “in certain cases” will seek admissions of liability as part of settlements. The statement made headlines, and for good reason: for decades, the SEC has allowed settling defendants to neither admit nor deny…
The appeal of Judge Rakoff’s rejection of the settlement between the SEC and Citigroup is spectacular theater. Behind the scenes, however, is a highly serious issue: does a federal district judge have the power, as a condition to approving a consent judgment, to require an admission of liability or to otherwise impose collateral estoppel effects.
The briefing is complete. I commend it to you (if you have a couple of hours to spare); it is excellent and entertaining. Oral argument has been requested but not scheduled.
Here’s some background. The SEC investigated Citigroup’s marketing of collateralized debt obligations. The SEC then filed a complaint alleging non-scienter violations of the Securities Act. The same day, the SEC also filed a proposed consent judgment, enjoining violations of the law, ordering business reforms, and requiring the company to pay $285 million. As part of the consent judgment, Citigroup did not admit or deny the complaint’s allegations. Judge Rakoff held a hearing to determine “whether the proposed judgment is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest.” In advance, the court posed nine questions, which the parties answered in detail. Judge Rakoff rejected the consent judgment.
The rejection order rested, in part, on the court’s determination that any consent judgment that is not supported by “proven or acknowledged facts” would not serve the public interest because:
- the public would not know the “truth in a matter of obvious public importance”, and
- private litigants would not be able to use the consent judgment to pursue claims because it would have “no evidentiary value and no collateral estoppel effect”.
The SEC and Citigroup appealed, and sought an order staying the rejection order pending appeal. A panel of the Second Circuit granted the motion, finding that the SEC and Citigroup have a strong likelihood of success on appeal, and rejecting the district court’s holding that a consent judgment may be approved only if “liability has been conceded or proved and is embodied in the judgment.”
The parties then filed appeal briefs. One of the briefs is from pro bono counsel appointed to represent Judge Rakoff.