Introduction Insider trading cases frequently capture public attention and serve as critical learning points for legal and financial professionals. Recent high-profile cases have not only highlighted the consequences of illegal trading but have also set important legal precedents. This post examines a notable insider trading case involving a remote worker, the lessons it offers, and its impact on future legal

Introduction Insider trading is a term that often evokes images of financial scandal and corporate malfeasance. At its core, insider trading involves the buying or selling of a publicly-traded company’s stock by someone who has non-public, material information about that stock. While the concept may seem straightforward, the legal landscape surrounding insider trading is complex and nuanced. This guide aims

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated a 102(e) administrative proceeding against Clark Schaefer Hackett & Co. (“CSH”), a public accounting firm, pursuant to Sections 4C and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), and Rule 102(e)(1)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice.  Rule 102(e)(1)(ii) provides, in pertinent part, that: The Commission may . . .

Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and the rules promulgated thereunder require issuers of securities registered pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12 to file with the Commission current and accurate information in periodic reports, even if the registration is voluntary under Section 12(g). Specifically, Rule 13a-1 requires issuers to file annual reports, and Rule 13a-13

Few stories that begin with a government investigation have a happy ending. This is one of them, and the reason is the company’s decision to cooperate and remediate before charges were filed—a smart decision that started with the hiring of competent SEC defense counsel.  Recently, View, Inc. (“View”), a manufacturer of “smart” windows, came under SEC scrutiny for, among other