For clients under SEC investigation, receiving a Wells Notice can feel like the beginning of the end. And while it signals that the SEC Staff intends to recommend an enforcement action to the Commission, it also presents an opportunity — often the first and only opportunity — to present arguments directly to the Commission before charges are filed. In this

A recent decision in SEC v. Ahmed offers a stark reminder of how far the SEC will go to grab assets—even those arguably beyond what the law permits. While the Ahmed ruling itself may be defensible under the facts, it highlights a trend that practitioners and those under SEC investigation need to watch closely: the SEC is pushing the boundaries

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s recent opinion in the Supreme Court’s ruling on Richard Glossip’s case brought renewed attention to the critical obligations prosecutors bear under landmark decisions familiar to both prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys: Brady v. Maryland, Giglio v. United States, and Napue v. Illinois. Reading Glossip made me reflect on the solemn duty of disclosure—a duty I took seriously

The SEC’s Broader Pattern of Overreach The SEC has taken a significant step in expanding insider trading liability with its “shadow trading” theory, which targets corporate insiders who use material non-public information (MNPI) from their own companies to trade in economically linked firms. This theory was tested for the first time in SEC v. Panuwat, where the Commission successfully persuaded

I. Riley’s Foundation The Supreme Court’s ruling in Riley v. California affirmed that cellphones require heightened privacy protections due to their vast storage of personal data. The decision reinforced Fourth Amendment safeguards by requiring search warrants for cellphone data. Building on Riley, the D.C. Circuit in United States v. Brown addressed whether compelling biometric unlocks—forcing individuals to unlock their phones