Category Archives: Directors & Officers

Cyber Experts React to Court Decision in the SEC’s SolarWinds Enforcement Action

Editor’s Note: PCCE has been watching the developments in the SEC’s enforcement action against SolarWinds and its CISO over allegedly misleading disclosures and controls failures related to the compromise of its Orion product by putative Russian hackers. In this post, cybersecurity experts and lawyers discuss the recent decision by U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer to dismiss most of the SEC’s claims in the case.

Photos of the authors

Top left to right: Randal Milch, Judy Titera, James Haldin, and Alan Wilson. Bottom left to right: Matthew Beville, Elizabeth Roper, and Jerome Tomas. (Photos courtesy of authors)

Continue reading →

Understanding the FTC’s Non-Compete Clause Rule and Its Impact on NDAs

by Joshua H. Lerner, Laura E. Schneider, and Andrew Stauber

photos of the authors

From left to right: Joshua H. Lerner, Laura E. Schneider, and Andrew Stauber (Photos courtesy of WilmerHale)

As we previously reported, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced on April 23, 2024, its Non-Compete Clause Rule (Final Rule), which aims to ban all new post-employment non-competition restrictions and invalidate most existing ones. The Final Rule already has sparked multiple lawsuits seeking to prevent it from taking effect as scheduled on September 4, 2024. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas is expected to make a decision in one such lawsuit by July 3, 2024.

As September 4 approaches, many questions remain regarding the potential impact and scope of the Final Rule. This alert focuses on how the Final Rule might affect confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that employers use to protect their trade secrets and other confidential information.

Continue reading →

CFTC Year in Review: 23 Takeaways From 2023 and Predictions for 2024

by Matthew B. Kulkin, Elizabeth L. Mitchell, Gretchen Passe Roin, Timothy F. Silva, Tiffany J. Smith, Dino Wu, Matthew Beville, and Joseph M. Toner

Photos of the authors

Top (left to right): Matthew B. Kulkin, Elizabeth L. Mitchell, Gretchen Passe Roin, and Timothy F. Silva
Bottom (left to right): Tiffany J. Smith, Dino Wu, Matthew Beville, and Joseph M. Toner (photos courtesy of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP)

At an industry event in early 2023, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or the Commission) Chairman Rostin Behnam set out a comprehensive agenda.[1] When Chairman Behnam detailed the CFTC’s 2023 work plan, the CFTC was building on its first year with a full slate of Commissioners, new Division Directors, and senior leadership. As we look back on the recently completed calendar year and turn our attention to the rapidly approaching 2024 presidential and congressional elections, the CFTC seems poised for another year packed with a flurry of regulatory, policy, and enforcement activity. This article lays out 23 of our key takeaways from the past year and offers insights on what might take place in the coming months.

Continue reading →

Monitoring What Matters: A Fresh Look Proposal to Government and Industry for How Post-Resolution Oversight Can Best Deny Hostile Actors the Means to Cause Deadly Harm

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Photos of the authors.

From left to right: Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (Photos courtesy of authors)

U.S. economic sanctions and export controls serve a wide range of national security interests. When hostile actors rely on U.S.-designed or -manufactured components in weapons used in fatal attacks on U.S. and coalition military personnel and civilian populations, there is an acute need to quickly identify the illicit trade flows and stop those components from reaching the battlefield. Continue reading →

Amid Storm of Controversy, SEC Adopts Final Climate Disclosure Rules

by Stephen A. Byeff, Ning Chiu, Joseph A. Hall, Margaret E. Tahyar, Ida Araya-Brumskine, Loyti Cheng, Michael Comstock, and David A. Zilberberg

photos of authors

Top from left to right: Stephen A. Byeff, Ning Chiu, Joseph A. Hall, Margaret E. Tahyar.
Bottom left to right: Ida Araya-Brumskine, Loyti Cheng, Michael Comstock, and David A. Zilberberg. (Photos courtesy of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP).

Changes from the proposal include elimination of Scope 3 disclosures, scaled back attestation requirements, additional materiality qualifiers and narrower financial statement triggers. Given the lack of explicit congressional authorization for this new sweeping disclosure regime, its political sensitivity, complexity, cost and the substantial challenges already underway in federal courts, we anticipate rapid developments and possibly confusing stops and starts to unfold over the coming weeks.

Continue reading →

AI in the 2024 Proxy Season: Managing Investor and Regulatory Scrutiny

by William Savitt, Mark F. Veblen, Kevin S. Schwartz, Noah B. Yavitz, Carmen X. W. Lu, and Courtney D. Hauck

Photos of the authors

Top from left to right: William Savitt, Mark F. Veblen, and Kevin S. Schwartz.
Bottom left to right: Noah B. Yavitz, Carmen X. W. Lu, and Courtney D. Hauck. (Photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

Corporate disclosures concerning artificial intelligence have increased dramatically in the past year, with Bloomberg reporting that nearly half of S&P 500 companies referenced AI in their most recent annual reports. And some investors are clamoring for even more, using shareholder proposals to press public companies for detailed disclosures concerning AI initiatives, policies, and practices — including, most recently, an Apple shareholder proposal that attracted significant support at a meeting last week. Regulators, meanwhile, have signaled increasing scrutiny of AI-related corporate disclosures, including in a February speech by SEC Chair Gensler cautioning against “AI washing” — the practice of overstating or misstating corporate AI activity. For the 2024 proxy season and beyond, public companies will need to balance the competing demands of regulators and investors, in order to craft effective, responsive strategies for engaging with their stockholders on AI topics. 

Continue reading →

SEC Issues Long-Awaited Climate-Related Disclosure Rule

by Eric T. Juergens, Benjamin R. Pedersen, Paul M. Rodel, Kristin A. Snyder, Caroline N. Swett, Ulysses Smith, Michael Keene, Mie Morikubo, Michael Pan, Amy Pereira, and Maayan G. Stein

photos of authors

Top left to right: Eric T. Juergens, Benjamin R. Pedersen, Paul M. Rodel, Kristin A. Snyder, Caroline N. Swett, and Ulysses Smith. Bottom left to right: Michael Keene, Mie Morikubo, Michael Pan, Amy Pereira, and Maayan G. Stein. (Photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP).

On March 6, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted a long-awaited final rule, The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors, which will require registrants, including foreign private issuers (“FPIs”),[1] to disclose extensive climate-related information in their registration statements and periodic reports (the “Final Rule”). The Final Rule is intended to facilitate the disclosure of “complete and decision-useful information about the impacts of climate-related risks on registrants” and to improve “the consistency, comparability, and reliability of climate-related information for investors.” The Final Rule constitutes one of the most significant changes ever to SEC disclosure requirements, and is expected to face legal challenges. The Final Rule is available here and the accompanying fact sheet is available here.

Continue reading →

“Expect Some Illumination”: A Fresh Look at U.S. Congressional Hearings in the Era of Sanctions and Export Controls as the New FCPA

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Photos of the authors.

From left to right: Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (Photos courtesy of authors)

The 118th U.S. Congress has taken an active and bipartisan interest in U.S. sanctions and export controls. With reports that U.S. executives have been asked to testify before the U.S. House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party[1] and recent hearings before a U.S. Senate subcommittee previewing further questions for both companies and regulators,[2] U.S. companies whose products might require a license for export to China or that might be found in Russian or Iranian weapons should prepare for congressional scrutiny—and congressional pressure on the U.S. Executive Branch departments to deliver enforcement results. Continue reading →

How Not to Stand Out Like a Sore Thumb (Part 2): A Fresh Look at the “High Probability” Definition of Knowledge Applied to Export Controls and Sanctions Enforcement

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Photos of the authors.

From left to right: Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (Photos courtesy of authors)

Media coverage concerning the widespread use of U.S. or Western microelectronics in recovered Russian- or Iranian-manufactured missiles and drones is putting pressure on governments, manufacturers, and exporters to consider ways to reduce more effectively the flows of such items to prohibited end-users. Even considering that many of the items are ubiquitous consumer electronics, the discovery of such items after mass-casualty events—including fatalities—on the front lines puts manufacturers and exporters on the front pages and in the crosshairs of U.S. regulators, prosecutors, media, and congressional committees. However the items arrived on the battlefield, their presence begs the questions of how and through whom they arrived. Continue reading →

How Not to Stand Out Like a Sore Thumb (Part 1): A Fresh Look at the “Willful” Intent Standard for Criminal Liability in Export Controls and Sanctions Corporate Enforcement

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Photos of the authors.

From left to right: Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (Photos courtesy of authors)

“The ‘willfulness’ standard for criminal prosecutions appears nearly insurmountable to reach.”

So concluded a “90-Day Review Report” issued January 2, 2024 by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, following congressional hearings in May and December 2023.[1] The report further contended that “the statutory requirement to prove ‘willfulness’” for there to be a criminal violation of U.S. export controls (and sanctions) is a “high bar” that “often results in [the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry & Security (“BIS”)] export enforcement personnel pursuing administrative enforcement actions with lower penalties,” compared to the alternative (unstated but implied by the report) of U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) personnel pursuing criminal penalties.[2]

This conclusion is not accurate. BIS is not itself responsible for criminal enforcement, yet it has partnered closely with the DOJ’s National Security Division—including by co-leading the inter-agency Disruptive Technology Strike Force launched on February 16, 2023—to bring several high-profile convictions or resolutions. Nor is the requirement to prove willfulness “insurmountable” for U.S. federal prosecutors, whose cases achieve the standard regularly and can do so not only with direct evidence of intent but also indirect evidence, i.e., the relevant facts and circumstances. Such facts and circumstances often—especially in the eyes of jurors—make the willful nature of criminal evasion schemes stand out like a sore thumb. Continue reading →