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
More than two years after announcing the first round of settlements in the ongoing “off-channel communications” probe, the SEC recently announced another round of settlements with 26 financial firms, totaling $390 million in fines. These most recent settlements are notable for two reasons: (1) they include the SEC’s second settlement with an entity operating solely as a registered investment adviser (“RIA”) with no associated broker-dealer, and (2) the SEC has again explicitly noted that companies that self-reported obtained lower fines.Continue Reading Latest Round of SEC “Off-Channel” Communications Settlements Highlights Risks for Investment Advisers and Benefits of Self-Reporting
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), to sue the target company for alleged misstatements by the target company made prior to the merger between the two companies. The Court’s decision provides protection to target company executives speaking to the press about their company’s forecasts and capabilities prior to acquisition by tightening the standing requirements for pre-acquisition SPAC investor plaintiffs.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
Is your M&A target a company that develops or uses artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools? AI, and generative AI technologies specifically, are powerful business tools but present novel legal issues in the context of M&A transactions. It is increasingly important to identify and understand the unique legal risks associated with the use of AI technologies, tailor your diligence to investigate them and include AI-specific reps and warranties in your deal documents. To effectively do this, it is important to have someone well-versed in AI technology and the associated legal issues on the deal team. Many subtle issues, if not properly understood and addressed, can lead to liability and/or loss of business value. The attached article addresses the expansion of due diligence, beyond standard tech diligence, to include the analysis of AI tools developed or used by the target. It covers some of the key AI-specific legal issues to consider in M&A, but the issues in each transaction will be unique depending on the target company’s involvement with AI. Once you understand the target company’s involvement with AI, it is important to consider the unique legal issues and the diligence needed beyond the standard diligence questions.Continue Reading M&A Transactions: Diligencing AI Issues with Target Companies
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 be resolved outside of Article III courts without a jury, does not apply in this context because the action does not fall within the distinctive areas involving governmental prerogatives traditionally resolved without Article III adjudication. This ruling curtails the SEC’s authority to impose penalties for fraud, and could potentially affect the enforcement capabilities of agencies enforcing federal law.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, executives, and advisors must understand to navigate the complex terrain of M&A transactions effectively.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 Delaware Court of Chancery addressed the enforceability of “lost-premium damages” provisions, which provides that stockholders can recover lost premium damages when buyer is in breach.Continue Reading Lost-Premium Damages under Merger Agreement – Proposed Amendment to the DGCL in Light of Crispo vs. Musk
Is your M&A target a manufacturing company with automated production, a consumer products business with online sales and marketing or an education company that creates content for students? The increasing use and development of artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems and products, particularly generative AI, has created risks for businesses using such tools. AI plays a role in many industries and businesses whose products and services are not themselves AI. In the context of a M&A transaction, it is important to identify and allocate responsibility for these risks. Risks of AI may include: infringement (including through use of training data as well as outputs), confidentiality, IP ownership and protection (including limits on protection of IP generated by AI), regulatory (e.g., privacy, recent AI related legislation), and other risks arising from use such as indemnity obligations or managing contractor use of AI.Continue Reading M&A Transactions: Drafting AI Representations and Warranties for Non-AI Companies
On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) voted 3-2 to issue its final rule (“Final Rule”) banning employers from imposing noncompete clauses on their workers, approving the final rule in a special Open Commission Meeting. Continue Reading FTC Votes to Ban Noncompete Agreements