The jury finds shadow trading is a thing
The trial took eight days. The jury took two hours. On Friday, in the case of SEC v. Panuwat, the jury in a federal district court in California determined that Matthew Panuwat was civilly liable for insider trading under the misappropriation theory. This case dates back to August 2021, when the SEC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court charging Panuwat, a former employee of Medivation Inc., an oncology-focused biopharma, with insider trading in advance of Medivation’s announcement that it would be acquired by a big pharma company, Pfizer. As you know by now, this case has often been viewed as highly unusual: Panuwat didn’t trade in shares of Medivation or shares of the acquiror, nor did he tip anyone about the transaction. No, the SEC’s novel—but winning—theory of the case was that Panuwat engaged in “shadow trading,” using the information about the acquisition of his employer to purchase call options on Incyte Corporation, another biopharma that the SEC claimed was comparable to Medivation, based on an assumption that the acquisition of Medivation at a healthy premium would probably boost the share price of Incyte. Panuwat made over $120,000 in profit. According to a statement from the Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, Gurbir S. Grewal, “[a]s we’ve said all along, there was nothing novel about this matter, and the jury agreed: this was insider trading, pure and simple. Defendant used highly confidential information about an impending announcement of the acquisition of biopharmaceutical company Medivation, Inc., the company where he worked, by Pfizer Inc. to trade ahead of the news for his own enrichment. Rather than buying the securities of Medivation, however, Panuwat used his employer’s confidential information to acquire a large stake in call options of another comparable public company, Incyte Corporation, whose share price increased materially on the important news.”
In its discretion, SEC issues stay of final climate disclosure rules
The SEC has determined, in this Order posted today, to exercise its discretion to stay the final climate disclosure rules “pending the completion of judicial review of the consolidated Eighth Circuit petitions.” If you have been following the SEC travails regarding the climate disclosure rules, you know that there were ten different petitions—the tenth petition having been filed by the National Legal and Policy Center and the Oil and Gas Workers Association—consolidated in the Eighth Circuit, challenging the rules and several asking the court for a stay. The SEC had opposed the stay. (See, e.g., this PubCo post, this PubCo post and this PubCo post.) (One of the petitioners, Liberty Energy, even filed a precautionary complaint challenging the final rules in a Texas District Court, just in case jurisdiction was ultimately not accepted in the Court of Appeals.) At the end of March, the SEC had filed a motion to establish a consolidated briefing schedule relating to all of the motions seeking a stay; 31 petitioners opposed the SEC’s motion, instead asking the court to expedite briefing on the existing and expected emergency stay motions. Under the Exchange Act and the APA, the SEC “has discretion to stay its rules pending judicial review if it finds that ‘justice so requires.’” According to the Order, the SEC has determined that justice requires that the SEC stay the final rules.
Commissioner Uyeda warns: the SEC “has gone astray”
In remarks at PLI’s SEC Speaks, SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda expressed his concern that the SEC “has gone astray”: instead of focusing on “its narrow mission,” Uyeda fears, the SEC is acceding to the pressure of political activists who “seek to transform the agency’s authority to achieve policy objectives that are outside of its statutory mandate.” To illustrate, Uyeda highlights two examples: the climate disclosure rules, just adopted by the SEC, and the conflict minerals rules, which were adopted by the SEC over a decade ago and are here presented as a cautionary tale. While the conflict minerals rules were actually mandated by Congress, the climate disclosure rules are something different: the SEC has “acted on its own volition,” Uyeda contends, in adopting “a climate disclosure rule that seeks to exert societal pressure on companies to change their behavior. It is the Commission that determined to delve into matters beyond its jurisdiction and expertise.” To Uyeda, “this action deviates from the Commission’s mission and contravenes established law.”
Commissioner Peirce blasts SEC for failing to engage with the public
In her remarks yesterday at PLI’s SEC Speaks—after a detour to excoriate the SEC’s “maze of staff guidance” defining industry practices that has become effectively “mandatory” even in the absence of input from the full SEC (with crypto accounting under SAB 121 coming in for her particular animus)—Commissioner Hester Peirce turned to her main topic: the “dwindling of genuine Commission and staff engagement with the public.” When it comes to providing interpretive guidance or otherwise engaging with industry, she asserts, the SEC is “closed for business.” For this development, she ascribes blame to the Commission itself. She has some ideas for overcoming the problem.
Morris Nichols discusses proposed new amendments to the DGCL
You might be interested in this recent Alert from the Delaware firm, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell (including a more expansive article), which addresses amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law just proposed by the Council of the Corporation Law Section of the Delaware State Bar Association. It’s worth emphasizing that the proposed amendments have not yet been submitted to the Delaware General Assembly for its consideration and approval, so they are not yet effective. As the Alert indicates, the proposed new amendments are designed to address the effects of recent Delaware cases highlighting “that the legal requirements identified in the cases were not necessarily in line with market practice. The Amendments are designed to bring existing law in line with such practice.”
SEC requests court deny stay in climate disclosure rules litigation
It’s been a day or two now—what’s going on with the SEC’s climate disclosure rules litigation? When we left our tale, petitioners Liberty and Nomad had submitted this notice of pending emergency motion advising the Eighth Circuit of their request for a new administrative stay and a stay pending judicial review in connection with their petition challenging the rules. And the SEC was directed to file a response by the close of business yesterday. (See this PubCo post.) As directed by the Court, the SEC did submit a letter of response. Now, another petitioner, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has also moved for a stay pending appeal. And a new petition for review has been filed.
Can director commitments policies help prevent overextended boards?
There is a lot going on at companies, and—you may be surprised to hear—not all of it is new regulation. There are new technologies, such as AI, global political instability and social change, not to mention ESG and cybersecurity. Many of these topics, as they affect a company, fall within the remit of the board for oversight. The energy and time necessary can be overwhelming. In this article, Director Commitments Policies, Overboarding, and Board Refreshment, proxy advisory firm Glass Lewis discusses one way to help ensure that directors have “sufficient time and energy to fulfill their duties and obligations to shareholders”: a director commitments policy. As a corollary, GL maintains, these policies can also serve to boost board refreshment, and can represent a vital measure of corporate governance.
Back on the SEC climate rules rollercoaster in the Eighth Circuit—will a new stay be granted?
Liberty Energy Incorporated and Nomad Proppant Services LLC decided to give it another go. Are you surprised? In this notice of pending emergency motion, Liberty and Nomad advise the Eighth Circuit of their request for a new administrative stay and a stay pending judicial review in connection with their petition challenging the SEC’s final climate disclosure rules. As you may remember, a petition for review of the final rules was filed by Liberty and Nomad on March 6 in the Fifth Circuit and their motion for an administrative stay was granted on March 15. That case was just one of nine challenging the SEC’s rules in six different circuits. Upon request of the SEC, on March 21, 2024, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a consolidation order in these cases, randomly selecting the Eighth Circuit as the court in which to consolidate these petitions. Following that consolidation order, the Fifth Circuit ordered the transfer of Liberty’s petition to the Eighth Circuit and the dissolution of the administrative stay. (See this PubCo post.)
Can companies escape the trap of politics?
We hear a lot about companies taking public positions on political issues—as well as the backlash that many experience as a result. Whether you think corporate participation in politics is a good thing or a bad thing, you might be interested in this thought-provoking paper from the University of Pennsylvania Institute for Law & Economics, How Did Corporations Get Stuck in Politics and Can They Escape?,© by Professors Jill Fisch and Jeff Schwartz (All rights reserved, 2024). In their paper, the authors observe that, while, historically, companies have long engaged in politics and lobbying, something seems quite different today. How? The difference is that companies seem to be taking public positions on any number of hot political issues, even if those issues are not connected to the conduct of their businesses. That is, while companies may take these positions “for business reasons—to appeal to their customers, employees, or investors”—these issues are not necessarily intrinsic to their business operations. The authors contend that this type of corporate behavior, which they call “corporate political posturing,” is “problematic,” creating potential risks for the company, its shareholders and for society. The authors suggest some ways for companies to depoliticize, including through coordinated “voluntary disarmament.” Certainly, some ideas to think about.
You must be logged in to post a comment.