Federal agencies aggressively pursued enforcement actions in June. At the same time, state and federal regulators continued to recognize the importance of blockchain industry regulation by putting forth significant policy proposals, including proposals that impact cryptocurrency miners, 401k plans, and more.

Continue Reading June 2022 Crypto Enforcement Actions and Regulatory Guidance Roundup

The Department of Justice recently filed a complaint to prevent Booz Allen Hamilton’s $440 million acquisition of “agile and innovative” competitor EverWatch, Inc.[1] Among the notable aspects of the complaint is its definition of the relevant market as a single NSA contract and its assertion that the merger agreement itself constituted a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Continue Reading DOJ Sues to Block Merger Between Booz Allen Hamilton and EverWatch Based on Antitrust Concerns Relating to Single-Contract Market

In Fowler v. Golden Pacific Bancorp, Inc., 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 548 (Cal. App. June 23, 2022), the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (Krause, J.), reinforced the near absolute right of directors of a California corporation to inspect their company’s books and records pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Corporations Code. The Court clarified that these rights hold even when the director has a conflict of interest or is involved in litigation with the corporation. Generally, directors may be denied access to books and records only in the most extreme cases, such as when evidence shows the director intends to abuse his or her rights under Section 1602 to violate fiduciary duties or commit a tort against the company.

Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Reaffirms Broad Inspection Rights Accorded to Directors Under Section 1602 of the California Corporations Code

Since President Biden’s July 2021 direction to the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to “curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility,” the FTC has ratcheted up its scrutiny of and investigations into non-compete agreements and other restrictive covenants. Now, the FTC has expanded beyond post-employment restrictive covenants to tackle “sale of business” non-competes. Most recently, the FTC voted in favor of a deal-changing proposed order against ARKO Corp. related to its 2021 acquisition of sixty fuel outlets from Corrigan Oil Company.

Continue Reading Buyer (and Seller) Beware: The FTC Is Coming for Your M&A Non-Competes

Technology solutions for the transfer, storage and management of electronic files and other digital content is vitally important for organizations to meet compliance obligations, ensure adequate data security and to administer company data generally.  Companies that provide solutions in this space – including in managed file transfer (MFT), file transfer protocol (FTP), cloud content storage and management and file sync-share, among others – are therefore very attractive targets for buyers in the “software-as-a-service” space.  Given that these businesses are charged with safeguarding their client’s precious data, however, there are unique issues in doing deals involving these types of businesses, which both potential buyers and sellers must be aware of.

Continue Reading Buying and Selling a File Management, Storage and Transfer Business

In May, we saw a slower month for crypto enforcement actions by state and federal regulators. See our March 2022 Crypto Enforcement Actions Roundup blog here where we discuss the regulatory guidance and jurisdiction of federal and state agencies to enforce these matters.

Continue Reading May 2022 Crypto Enforcement Actions and Regulatory Guidance Roundup

In Sirott v. Superior Court, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 389 (Cal. App. May 5, 2022), the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal (Humes, J.) analyzed the ownership requirements a plaintiff must satisfy to pursue derivative claims on behalf of a limited liability company.  Under California Corporations Code § 17709.02 (“Section 17709.02”), a putative derivative plaintiff must show both “contemporaneous” and “continuous” ownership to proceed with a derivative lawsuit.  Subject to certain statutorily defined exceptions, the contemporaneous ownership prerequisite requires the plaintiff to plead that it was a member of the limited liability company at the time of the transaction or any part of the transaction of which the plaintiff complains took place.  The continuous ownership requirement, in turn, obligates the plaintiff to remain a member of the limited liability company through the conclusion of the litigation.  In Sirott, the plaintiff’s derivative claims were properly ordered dismissed because the plaintiff lacked standing after it lost its interest in the limited liability company—i.e., the real party in interest with respect to the derivative claims.    

Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Clarifies that a Derivative Plaintiff Must Demonstrate Both “Contemporaneous” and “Continuous” Ownership to Maintain a Derivative Suit on Behalf of a Limited Liability Company

In April, we continued to see a steady pace in the seriousness and frequency of crypto enforcement actions by state and federal law enforcement.  (See our March 2022 Crypto Enforcement Actions Roundup blog here where we discuss the regulatory guidance and jurisdiction of federal and state agencies to enforce these matters.)
Continue Reading April 2022 Crypto Enforcement Actions And Regulatory Guidance Roundup

In Crest v. Padilla, No. 20STCV37513 (Cal. Super. Apr. 1, 2022), the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles (Green, J.) declared that Section 301.4 of the California Corporations Code is unconstitutional under the California state Constitution.  Section 301.4 requires publicly held corporations which have their principal executive offices located in California to include “underrepresented communities” on their boards of directors.  The trial court granted the taxpayer plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that the statute violated equal protection clause of the California Constitution.  The court’s decision renders the constitutionality of Section 301.4 ripe for appellate review by the California Court of Appeal.
Continue Reading Los Angeles Superior Court Invalidates California Board Diversity Statute, Rendering It Ripe for Review by the California Court of Appeal