Category Archives: Investor Protection

Evolution of AI Washing Enforcement: DOJ Enters the Picture

by Joel M. Cohen, Gabriella Margaux Pérez Klein, and Robert DeNault

Left to right: Joel M. Cohen, Gabriella Margaux Pérez Klein, and Robert DeNault (photos courtesy of White & Case LLP)

On April 9, the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission announced parallel cases against the founder and former CEO of an artificial intelligence startup for allegedly misleading investors about his former company’s product capabilities. The cases are the latest salvo in regulatory focus on AI companies and their public statements about the products they offer.

Continue reading →

The Tide Continues to Turn on the ESG Regulatory Front

by Steven A. Rosenblum, Adam O. Emmerich, David A. Katz, Andrew J. Nussbaum, Karessa L. Cain, John L. Robinson, Elina Tetelbaum and Allison Rabkin Golden

Top left to right: Steven A. Rosenblum, Adam O. Emmerich, David A. Katz and Andrew J. Nussbaum. Bottom left to right: Karessa L. Cain, John L. Robinson, Elina Tetelbaum and Allison Rabkin Golden (Photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz).

Recently, there’s been a series of developments where regulators, major index funds, and proxy advisors took steps to diminish the role of environmental, social and governance (ESG) initiatives at public companies.

Continue reading →

Cryptoasset Developments: Banking Regulators Reversing Anti-Crypto Stance

by Kevin S. Schwartz, David M. Adlerstein, and Ledina Gocaj

Left to right: Kevin S. Schwartz, David M. Adlerstein, and Ledina Gocaj (photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

In a significant shift, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) recently issued an interpretive letter empowering national banks to make their own business decisions related to cryptoasset products and services. The OCC guidance, which rescinds its prior-approval requirement for national banks to engage in cryptoasset activities, comes on the heels of an announcement that the FDIC is reassessing its own supervisory approach after disclosing “pause” letters that it had previously sent to 24 banks interested in crypto-related activities. Together, these developments signal an abrupt end to the bank regulators’ arbitrarily imposed ban on banks engaging in cryptoasset-related activities, an important step forward that we had endorsed.

Continue reading →

Key Considerations for Updating 2024 Annual Report Risk Factors

by Maia Gez, Scott Levi, Michelle Rutta, Melinda Anderson, and Danielle Herrick

Left to Right: Maia Gez, Scott Levi, Michelle Rutta, Melinda Anderson, and Danielle Herrick. (Photos courtesy of White & Case LLP)

With the 2025 annual reporting season upon us, public companies should consider potential updates to their risk factors for their Form 10-Ks and 20-Fs in light of recent economic, political, technological, and regulatory developments.[1]

As a starting point, this alert features (i) a list of key developments that US public companies should consider as they update risk factors in Part I and (ii) critical drafting considerations in Part II. Each company will, of course, need to assess its own material risks and tailor its risk factor disclosure to its particular circumstances.

As further described below, calendar year-end companies should review and update their risk factors by assessing the material risks that impact their businesses. Well-drafted risk factors play a crucial role in defending public companies against allegations of fraud under the US federal securities laws, and companies should therefore take the time to update their risk factor disclosure and tailor risks to their own facts and circumstances.

Continue reading →

District Court Rules BlackRock’s Inclusion as 401(k) Investment Manager Breaches Company’s ERISA Duty of Loyalty

by Martin Lipton, David A. Katz, and Elina Tetelbaum

Left to Right: Martin Lipton, David A. Katz and Elina Tetelbaum. (Photos Courtesy of Watchell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

The District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently ruled that a company breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) for permitting BlackRock’s inclusion as an investment manager of its employees’ retirement assets in a 401(k) Plan. After a four-day bench trial, the Court found that the company failed to “loyally act solely in the retirement plan’s best financial interests by allowing their corporate interests, as well as BlackRock’s ESG interests, to influence management of the plan.”

Continue reading →

Samuels v. Lido DAO: a Potential New Frontier for Liability in the Cryptocurrency Space

by Stephen Gannon, James Goldfarb, and Alexandra Coyle

Stephen Gannon, James Goldfarb, and Alexandra Coyle (photos courtesy of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP)

In denying motions to dismiss, court potentially expands liability for venture capital firms investing in cryptocurrency enterprises

A recent order handed down by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California could be a new source of concern for digital asset entrepreneurs and the venture capital firms which invest in and support them. In Samuels v. Lido DAO the court denied the motion to dismiss filed by an entity called Lido DAO (“Lido”) and a group of its institutional investors regarding what was alleged to be a sale of unregistered tokens on an exchange. Lido was and is the operator of a successful “Staking as a Service” business conducted through a decentralized autonomous organization, or a “DAO.” Founded in 2020, Lido provides a service in which it gathers ETH from individual holders, which it then pools and “stakes” to provide validation for transactions on the Ethereum blockchain. It also selects validators and provides an “oracle” to ensure that (i) the validators, (ii) the owners who pooled their ETH, and (iii) Lido itself receive the correct ETH rewards for performing the validation work.[1]

In largely denying defendants’ motions to dismiss, the court’s order potentially greatly expands the liability venture capital firms based in California might face, particularly in the context of investing in cryptocurrency enterprises, and may raise more questions than it answers for parties involved in such disputes.

Continue reading →

Cryptoasset Developments: Prospects for Legal Clarity

by Kevin S. Schwartz, David M. Adlerstein, Samantha M. Altschuler, and Sabina M. Beleuz Neagu

Left to Right: Kevin S. Schwartz, David M. Adlerstein, Samantha M. Altschuler, and Sabina M. Beleuz Neagu (photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

A resilient cryptoasset industry is emerging from weathering years of headwinds — from edicts prohibiting the banking of the industry, to an SEC leadership bent on aggressive regulation-by-enforcement in lieu of transparent rulemaking. Looking ahead, tailwinds abound: Bitcoin and Ether exchange-traded products, approved just this year, already have over $150 billion in assets under management. Leading financial institutions have announced plans to tokenize substantial new funds on public blockchains. And tens of millions of Americans own cryptoassets, as use cases continue to proliferate — from payments for goods and services, both on- and off-blockchain; to decentralized financial (DeFi) platforms; to the authentication of content provenance (an essential need amidst AI’s rapid development). With a new Administration and Congress in the offing, there are at last prospects for regulatory clarity in an arena long clouded by uncertainty.

Continue reading →

An Update on SEC Cybersecurity Reporting

by Scott Kimpel

Photo courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

As we approach the one-year anniversary of the effective date of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) reporting rules on Form 8-K for material cybersecurity incidents, we provide a high-level overview of the last year’s developments.

Background on SEC Reporting Rules

Under the SEC’s rules, Item 1.05 of Form 8-K generally requires public companies in the United States to disclose material cybersecurity incidents within four business days of determining that the incident is material. The disclosure must contain the nature, scope and timing of the incident and the impact or reasonably likely impact of the incident on the company, its financial condition and its results of operations. For these purposes, SEC rules define “cybersecurity incident” to include “an unauthorized occurrence, or a series of related unauthorized occurrences, on or conducted through a registrant’s information systems that jeopardizes the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of a registrant’s information systems or any information residing therein.”

Continue reading →

SEC Acting Director of Enforcement Delivers Remarks at PCCE’s Fall Conference

On November 22, 2024, the NYU Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) hosted a conference titled “New Directions in Corporate and Individual Enforcement.” At the conference, Sanjay Wadhwa, Acting Director of Enforcement, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), delivered remarks on the SEC’s enforcement priorities and enforcement policy, which are reprinted below and available on the SEC’s website here. After his remarks, Wadhwa participated in a fireside chat with PCCE’s Executive Director, Joseph Facciponti.

Good afternoon. Thank you to the Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement for the opportunity to speak to you all.

Continue reading →

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.

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 →