On July 29, 2021, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed a securities and wire fraud indictment against Trevor Milton, the founder and one-time chairman of Nikola Corporation (“Nikola”), a pre-revenue electric- and hydrogen-powered vehicle company which went public through a merger with a special-purpose acquisition company (“SPAC”).[1]  The Indictment alleges that Milton made deceptive, false, and misleading claims regarding Nikola’s products and technology, which were directed at retail investors through social media and television, print, and podcast interviews.  The SEC also filed a parallel civil action against Milton, alleging violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and which contends that Milton engaged in a “relentless public relations blitz” on social media and the popular press directed at “Robinhood investors” in order to inflate Nikola’s stock price.

These actions further confirm the heightened law enforcement and regulatory scrutiny of SPACs, as well as continuing interest by government authorities in protecting retail investors in so-called meme stocks.[2] Continue Reading DOJ Indicts Founder of Nikola for Allegedly Defrauding Retail SPAC Investors

On July 13, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced a major enforcement action related to a proposed merger between a special purpose acquisition company (“SPAC”) and a privately held target company (“Target”).  This followed numerous warnings by the SEC staff over several months of enhanced scrutiny of such transactions under the federal securities laws.[1]  The respondents, except for the Target’s CEO, settled the action by collectively agreeing to civil penalties of approximately $8 million and to certain equitable relief described below. [2] Continue Reading SEC Brings SPAC Enforcement Action and Signals More to Come

On May 6, 2021, the United States Government Accountability Office (“GAO”)—an independent, non-partisan congressional watchdog organization—published a report summarizing its study on the impact of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB” or the “Bureau”) reorganization of its fair lending enforcement and supervisory activities.[1]  In 2018, the Trump administration-led CFPB decided to relocate the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity (the “Office of Fair Lending”) from the Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending Division (“SEFL”) to the Office of Equal Opportunity and Fairness (“OEOF”), a division within the Office of the CFPB Director that plays no role in enforcement.  GAO found shortcomings in the reorganization process and highlighted that the reorganization likely led to a decrease in fair lending enforcement activity in 2018.  GAO ultimately recommended that the Bureau analyze the effects of the reorganization on its enforcement and supervision of fair lending laws, develop performance goals, and take measures to assess its fair lending activities going forward.

While not binding on the CFPB, GAO’s report is significant as it comes at a time when the current administration has signaled that it is motivated to increase enforcement of fair lending laws. Acting CFPB Director Dave Uejio has committed the Bureau to implementing GAO’s recommendations, and Biden’s CFPB Director nominee Rohit Chopra has similarly expressed that he would focus on fair lending.  Likewise, progressive advocates are using the report as an opportunity to apply increased pressure on the Biden administration to become more active in this area. Continue Reading GAO Recommends CFPB Evaluate Trump Era Fair Lending Reorganization

On May 12, 2021, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Ericsson”) announced that it had reached an agreement to settle a claim by a competitor, Nokia Corporation, for €80 million (approximately $97 million).[1]  Although Nokia’s complaint against Ericsson was not filed publicly, and therefore the details of the claim are not known, Ericsson’s announcement stated that “[t]he settlement relates to events that were the subject of a 2019 resolution with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of investigations into Ericsson’s violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).”[2]  This appears to be a rare instance in which a company that allegedly paid bribes to obtain business from a government entity agreed to compensate a competitor that lost out on the business opportunity as a result of the corrupt conduct, and demonstrates a further, significant risk of follow-on litigation relating to FCPA violations. Continue Reading Recent Settlement Highlights Risk of Follow-On Litigation Related to FCPA Investigations

On April 29, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) announced settled charges against eight public companies that filed notifications of late filings on Form 12b-25 (more commonly known as “Form NT”) without disclosing in those filings a pending restatement or correction of financial statements.

These settlements are a reminder that filing a Form NT is not only a necessary procedural step when an issuer will be delayed in filing a 10-K, 10-Q, 20-F or other specified report; it is also a decision point for making potentially sensitive disclosure to the market, and should reflect input from both a company’s IR and legal departments.

Please click here to read the full alert memorandum.

Last week, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of Article III standing a proposed class action against a health services provider that mistakenly disclosed personally identifiable information (“PII”).  In its opinion, the Second Circuit held that plaintiffs may establish Article III standing based on an increased risk of identity theft or fraud following an unauthorized disclosure of their data, but that the standard was not met based on the facts presented.  The decision, which is the first time the Second Circuit has explicitly adopted this standard, has potentially important implications going forward for data breach cases.

Continue Reading Second Circuit Articulates Injury Standard in Data Breach Suits

The Biden CFPB has begun a significant expansion in the use of consumer finance enforcement tools to act on behalf of marginalized communities.  On the back of Acting Director David Uejio’s announcement earlier this year of his intention to prioritize cases involving racial equity, and subsequent filing of the Biden CFPB’s first enforcement action against Libre Services for alleged abuse and “unfair practices” involving Spanish-speaking immigrant communities, the CFPB has also signaled a focus on potential violations of fair lending protections for LGBTQ individuals. Continue Reading The CFPB Broadens Enforcement Reach to Include Protection of LGBTQ Individuals

Conventional wisdom is that under the Biden Administration, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or the “Bureau”) will pivot to a more muscular approach to enforcement of consumer financial protection laws.  The current leadership has already begun to signal the CFPB’s move towards a more aggressive approach while President Biden’s nomination to lead the agency, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra, is considered by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.  CFPB Acting Director Dave Uejio has issued a number of statements identifying the agency’s priorities, particularly for the Bureau’s Division of Supervision, Enforcement & Fair Lending (“SEFL”), which are expected to continue—and potentially broaden—under a Chopra CFPB.[1]  The CFPB has already begun to rescind Trump administration policies restricting its enforcement more generally, and has indicated its intent to prioritize the enforcement of potential violations related to the COVID-19 pandemic and racial inequity. Continue Reading The CFPB’s Much-Anticipated Enforcement Shift Has Begun

As discussed in our prior blog post, earlier this year the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Second Circuit’s decision in a high-profile insider trading case, United States v. Blaszczak,[1] for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s “Bridgegate” decision in Kelly v. United States.[2]  In Blaszczak, the Second Circuit had previously found that a government agency’s confidential pre-decisional information constituted “property” under Title 18, and that therefore the Blaszczak defendants had committed fraud under the applicable statutes when they obtained the information and traded on it.[3]  However, following that decision, the Supreme Court held in Kelly that a government regulatory interest did not constitute “property” for the purpose of Title 18 fraud statutes.[4]  The Blaszczak defendants filed a petition for certiorari, contending that the Second Circuit’s reading of Title 18 could not be reconciled with the Supreme Court’s holding.[5]  After the Blaszczak defendants filed their petition, the government consented to a remand to the Second Circuit. Continue Reading DOJ Concedes Error In Title 18 Insider Trading Convictions After Supreme Court’s “Bridgegate” Decision

Last week, John Coates, the Acting Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance (“Corp Fin”), released a statement discussing liability risks in de-SPAC transactions.

The statement focused in particular on the concern that companies may be providing overly optimistic projections in their de-SPAC disclosures, in part based on the assumption that such disclosures are protected by a statutory safe harbor for forward-looking statements (which is not available for traditional IPOs).  Director Coates’s statement questions whether that assumption is correct, arguing that de-SPAC transactions may be considered IPOs for the purposes of the statute (and thus fall outside the protection offered by the statutory safe harbor).  He therefore encourages SPACs to exercise caution in disclosing projections, including by not withholding unfavorable projections while disclosing more favorable projections. Continue Reading Acting Director of SEC’s Corp Fin Issues Statement on Disclosure Risks Arising from De-SPAC Transactions