We invite you to read our latest client alert to assist in the preparation of your 10-K and 2025 annual meeting proxy statement. This alert highlights new disclosure requirements, hot topics and regulatory enforcement actions that may impact disclosure and processes, and other matters that companies should consider for compliance and planning purposes.
Continue Reading Things to Keep in Mind for Your Annual Report on Form 10-K and Proxy Statement
On December 26, 2024, in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, No. 24-40792, 2024 WL 5224138 (5th Cir. Dec. 26, 2024), a merits panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order vacating the Court’s own stay of the preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”), that was originally entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on December 3, 2024, No. 4:24-CV-478, 2024 WL 5049220 (E.D. Tex. Dec 5, 2024).
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Vacates Its Own Stay Rendering the Corporate Transparency Act Unenforceable . . . Again
As previously reported (here and here), some Delaware courts have recently declined to “blue pencil,” i.e., modify and narrow overbroad restrictive covenants. Instead, they have stricken in their entirety covenants deemed overbroad and declined to enforce them. On December 10, 2024, in Sunder Energy, LLC v. Tyler Jackson, et al., the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that Delaware courts have the discretion to decline to blue pencil overbroad restrictive covenants, even if the defendant’s conduct would violate a more narrowly circumscribed covenant.
Continue Reading Delaware Supreme Court Declines to Enforce Noncompete Against Company Founder Who Joined Competitor
On December 3, 2024, a Federal District Court in the Eastern District of Texas in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop v. Garland placed a nationwide injunction on the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”), a law regulating business entities that became effective on January 1, 2024. Pursuant to the ruling, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) released a statement confirming that reporting companies are not required to comply with the CTA while the preliminary injunction remains in effect.
Continue Reading Texas Federal District Court Issues Preliminary Injunction on CTA Nationwide; Department of Justice Appeals
In a significant early ruling, one of Texas’s newly established Business Courts addressed a key procedural question: whether pre-existing cases may be removed to the specialized forum. Judge Bill Whitehill’s October 30, 2024 decision in Energy Transfer LP v. Culberson Midstream LLC held that, regardless of subject matter, cases filed before September 1, 2024 must remain in their original courts.
Continue Reading No Move to Greener Pastures: Texas Business Court Holds Parties May Not Remove Pre-September 1, 2024 Cases to New Court System
The January 1, 2025 deadline for any “reporting company” formed prior to January 1, 2024 to file a Beneficial Ownership Information Report (“BOIR”) with the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) under the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) is quickly approaching. If you have not yet filed a BOIR or determined whether your company is required to do so under the CTA, this article will provide you with an overview of the most frequently asked questions regarding the CTA, its requirements, deadlines, penalties and most recent updates.
Continue Reading The Corporate Transparency Act: What You Need to Know Ahead of the January 1, 2025 Deadline
On October 10, 2023, the SEC adopted amendments to the rules governing beneficial ownership reporting on Schedules 13D and 13G. While compliance with the amendments to the rules governing beneficial ownership reporting on Schedule 13D went into effect on February 5, 2024, compliance with the revised Schedule 13G filing deadlines set forth below are effective on September 30, 2024.
Continue Reading Revised Schedule 13g Filing Deadlines Effective as of September 30, 2024 – What You Need to Know
In Samuelian v. Life Generations Healthcare, LLC, — Cal. App. 5th —, 2024 WL 3878448 (Cal. App. Aug. 20, 2024), the California Court of Appeal answered two long outstanding questions of California law concerning the enforceability of noncompetition agreements in the context of the sale of a business:
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Rules That Partial Sale of Business Can Bind Seller-Owner to a Noncompetition Agreement
In Max Royal LLC v. Atieva, Inc., No. 23-16049, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19910 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2024), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a securities class action brought by investors who purchased shares of the special purpose acquisition company Churchill Capital Corporation IV (“CCIV”) in early 2021 before it merged with Atieva, Inc. d/b/a Lucid Motors (“Lucid”) in July 2021. The three-judge panel held that purchasers of a security of an acquiring company do not have standing under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b),
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Applies Birnbaum Rule to Affirm Dismissal of Claims by SPAC Investors Asserted Against Target Company Executives for Pre-Merger Statements
As general interest and investment in AI has accelerated since the initial public launch of ChatGPT, so too has the U.S. federal government both increased its spending in the area[i] and the speed with which it adopted guidelines on the utilization of AI more generally.[ii] This tracks other actions outside the U.S.,[iii] and anticipates corresponding initiatives at the state and municipal levels.[iv]
Continue Reading AI Considerations in Government Contract-Related M&A Transactions
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859, 2024 WL 3187811 (U.S. June 27, 2024), the United Stated Supreme Court (Roberts, C.J.) held that when the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles the defendant to a trial by jury. This decision was based upon the Court’s interpretation that the SEC’s antifraud provisions replicate common law fraud, and thus actions for violations of these provisions implicate the Seventh Amendment right. The Court determined that the “public rights” exception, which allows certain matters to
Continue Reading Supreme Court Limits SEC’s Enforcement Power to Penalize Fraud
In the dynamic and ever-evolving landscape of mergers and acquisitions (“M&A”) and related corporate transactions, Delaware courts continue to play a pivotal role in shaping legal precedents and guiding corporate practices. Delaware cases over the past year have been no exception, with several landmark decisions having significant implications for M&A strategy, governance, and dispute resolution. The summary and analysis of cases below touch upon critical aspects of corporate law as it relates to future M&A transactions. As we delve into these pivotal Delaware M&A cases, we aim to shed light on the key legal principles and takeaways that corporate attorneys,
Continue Reading Delaware M&A Case Law Roundup
On March 28, 2024, the Council of the Corporation Law Section of the Delaware State Bar Association (“DSBA”) issued proposed amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”), which, if signed into law, would become effective on August 1, 2024. One of the proposed amendment stems from Crispo v. Musk, C.A. No 2022-0666-KSJM, 2023 WL 7154477 (Del. Ch. Oct. 31, 2023), in which a Twitter stockholder alleged that Elon Musk and related entities breached fiduciaries duties as a controller and violated the Twitter/Musk merger agreement (until Elon Musk decided to close the merger anyway). In this case, the
Continue Reading Lost-Premium Damages under Merger Agreement – Proposed Amendment to the DGCL in Light of Crispo vs. Musk
In Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, No. 22-1165, 2024 WL 1588706 (U.S. Apr. 12, 2024) (“MIC”), the United States Supreme Court (Sotomayor, J.) held unanimously that “pure omissions” in a Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filing do not support liability under SEC Rule 10b-5(b). The Court ruled that the failure to make a required disclosure can give rise to a Rule 10b-5(b) claim only if the non-disclosure renders affirmative “statements made” misleading. Put differently, if a company elects to speak, it must tell the whole truth (or at least “information necessary to ensure that the [affirmative] statements made are
Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds “Pure Omissions” Are Not Actionable Under Rule 10b-5(b)
Over the last several years, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has been laser-focused on the use of so-called “off-channel communications” in the financial services industry. On the theory that employees’ use of personal devices and platforms (such as WhatsApp) to communicate about business violates the “books and records” requirements applicable to financial institutions, the regulator has conducted intrusive and extensive investigations. To respond to the SEC, many companies have required employees to have their personal cell phones copied and reviewed.
Continue Reading What Private Equity Firms Need to Know About the Ongoing SEC Investigation of “Off-Channel” Communications
Beginning on January 1, 2024, the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) requires each domestic and foreign entity that qualifies as a “reporting company” to file a Beneficial Ownership Information Report (“BOIR”) with the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), which discloses information about the reporting company, the reporting company’s beneficial owners, and the individuals who prepared and filed the formation/registration documents of the reporting company with the Secretary of State (if formed/registered on or after January 1, 2024).
Continue Reading The Corporate Transparency Act: Which Business Entities are Impacted and What is Required