The SEC defeated a motion for summary judgment brought by a defendant whom the SEC accused of engaging in insider trading based on news about a not-yet-public corporate acquisition when he purchased securities of a company not involved in that deal. The November 20, 2023 decision in SEC v. Panuwat (N.D. Cal.) keeps alive the SEC’s theory of “shadow trading,” which involves trading the securities of a public company that is not the direct subject of the material nonpublic information (“MNPI”) at issue.

The Panuwat decision does not appear to break new ground under the misappropriation theory of insider trading in light of the particular facts alleged. But the “shadow trading” theory warrants attention because it can potentially have wide-ranging ramifications for traders by broadening the scope of the types of nonpublic information that might be deemed material.

Factual Background

The SEC filed its insider trading case against Matthew Panuwat, the then-head of business development at a biopharmaceutical company called Medivation. The SEC alleged that Panuwat had learned that Medivation was on the verge of being acquired by a very large pharmaceutical firm and that, shortly before the acquisition was announced, he had purchased call options on securities issued by Incyte, another biopharmaceutical company that allegedly shared Medivation’s market space.

The SEC’s theory is that several potential acquirors had been interested in buying Medivation, that Incyte was one of a “limited number of mid-cap” companies in Medivation’s area of business (oncology), that Incyte would become more attractive to potential acquirors once the Medivation deal was announced, and that Incyte’s stock price would increase as a result. The facts allegedly supported the SEC’s theory: when the Medivation acquisition was announced, Incyte’s stock price rose 7.7%, and Panuwat made more than $100,000 on his call options.

The evidence in the summary judgment record showed that:

  • Analysts had been following Medivation’s sales process and had discussed the potential impact that Medivation’s acquisition could have on other biopharmaceutical companies, including Incyte;
  • Panuwat had been involved in the search for an appropriate buyer for Medivation and in analysis of the potential impact of a sale;
  • The sale process was confidential within Medivation, with code names assigned to all involved parties;
  • The market had “a general idea” of how the sale process was progressing, but it did not know “the proposed sale prices and exact timing of the interested parties’ bids” – although certain Medivation employees, including Panuwat, often knew those details;
  • On August 18, 2016, Medivation’s CEO sent an email to Panuwat and 12 other Medivation employees stating that the ultimate buyer had “reiterated [to him] how much they really want this” transaction “this weekend,” and naming a specific price for the deal;
  • Seven minutes later, Panuwat started buying Incyte call options at three different strike prices, each of which represented 81%, 70%, and 84% of the daily volume of those options sold in the market; and
  • The Medivation acquisition was announced four days later, on August 22, and Incyte’s stock price rose that day by 7.7%.

The Court’s Decision

After having lost a motion to dismiss in 2022, Panuwat moved for summary judgment, arguing that no genuine factual dispute existed on issues relating to misappropriation of MNPI, breach of duty, and scienter. The court denied the motion in all respects, holding that sufficient factual disputes existed on all points and that those disputes should go to a jury.


The court first held that the SEC had “shown a connection between Medivation and Incyte such [that] a jury could find that a reasonable investor would view the information in [the Medivation CEO’s email to Panuwat] as altering the ‘total mix’ of information available about Incyte.” The SEC’s evidence suggested that the market did not perceive Medivation and Incyte “to be undisputedly different from each other.” Although the two companies “had leading drugs approved for treating different diseases and patients” and “did not share approved drug products or develop the same drugs,” the SEC had shown that “analyst reports and financial news articles repeatedly linked Medivation’s acquisition to Incyte’s future.” Panuwat had conceded that he was a sophisticated investor, so a jury could infer that he had been aware of the market reports and that they could have “influenced his perspective on the biopharmaceutical market.” He also had “commented positively on Incyte months before” he bought the call options. The totality of facts thus could “support the SEC’s theory that a reasonable investor such as Panuwat – who paid careful attention to the biopharmaceutical market, and specifically to Incyte – could have perceived Medivation and Incyte to be connected in the market such that pertinent information about one was material to the other.”

The court also took notice that the two companies occupied a “small pool” of the market: they were two of only a “small number” of “commercial oncology focused companies” with market capitalization of $5 billion to $75 billion. Moreover, Incyte’s stock price’s reaction to the Medivation acquisition was “‘strong evidence’ of how reasonable investors underst[oo]d the significance of th[e] information” at issue.

Nonpublic Nature of Information

The SEC also had established that the information in the Medivation CEO’s email was “nonpublic and available to Panuwat because of his position with Medivation.” Panuwat knew the identities of the companies that had submitted bids to buy Medivation; he knew those companies’ bids; he knew that the bidding process “was pushing up the sale price”; he knew that the ultimate buyer wanted to announce a final deal on August 22; and he knew on August 18 (minutes before he bought his call options) “the expected timing and price point of the deal.” While the market had been generally aware of the sale process, it had not known “the final details of the transaction – the final buyer, the final price, and the ultimate timing of the execution of the merger.”

Awareness of the MNPI

The court held that a factual dispute existed as to whether Panuwat had read his CEO’s email about the impending transaction. Panuwat argued that the SEC had not introduced evidence that he actually had read it, but the court held that a factual dispute existed inasmuch as the email had been sent to Panuwat’s office email address, no evidence existed that Panuwat had not been in the office or had been unable to read the email, and Panuwat admittedly had been “very involved” in at least some aspects of Medivation’s sale process.

Breach of Duty

Even if Panuwat had MNPI about Incyte, the SEC still needed to establish that he breached “some fiduciary, contractual, or similar obligation” to Medivation when he traded the Incyte call options. The court held that the SEC had adduced evidence of a breach of duty under three different theories, each of which sufficed to defeat summary judgment.

  • Medivation’s Insider Trading Policy, by which Panuwat was bound, prohibited employees from trading “‘the securities of another publicly-traded company, including all significant collaborators, customers, partners, suppliers or competitors,’” based on inside information obtained through employment at Medivation (emphasis added). The court rejected the argument that the types of companies listed after the word “including” constituted an exclusive list of companies covered by the prohibition. Rather, “a jury could determine that the types of companies listed in the Insider Trading Policy are not necessarily the only types of companies that the Policy covers.”
  • Panuwat had signed a Confidentiality Agreement that required him not to use Medivation’s confidential information for his own personal benefit.
  • A jury could find that Panuwat had breached “a duty of trust and confidence that was created when his employer, Medivation, entrusted him with confidential information.” That breach of duty did not depend on either the Insider Trading Policy or the Confidentiality Agreement. Rather, the duty arose from common-law agency principles, and Panuwat could be deemed to have breached it when he used for his personal benefit certain confidential information entrusted to him by his employer “without disclosing that fact to Medivation.”


Finally, the court held that sufficient evidence existed to allow a jury to find that Panuwat had acted with scienter. In so ruling, the court declined to address a split within the Ninth Circuit on whether “scienter requires that the defendant merely be ‘aware’ of the MNPI or if he must ‘use’ the MNPI” in trading. The SEC “has shown sufficient evidence to support a jury finding on either standard.”

  • A jury could find that Panuwat had received and read the Medivation’s CEO email about the timing and price of the acquisition.
  • The timing of Panuwat’s transactions – just seven minutes after the CEO’s email – could support a jury finding that Panuwat had used the information in buying the Incyte call options.
  • Arguments about Panuwat’s past trading history (which did not involve extensive trading in call options) could cut either way and thus created a factual dispute.

For all the above reasons, the court denied summary judgment for Panuwat, and the case will now proceed to trial unless a settlement occurs.


The court’s decision, like the prior ruling denying Panuwat’s motion to dismiss, appears to validate the SEC’s reliance on a “shadow trading” theory where a trader breaches his or her duty by using MNPI about one company to trade another company’s securities. But the court’s decision again rests at least to some extent on the facts specific to this case.

For example, the materiality analysis depended on evidence that (i) the third-party issuer (Incyte) was one of only a limited number of companies in the acquisition target’s business and financial space; (ii) the third party had been specifically cited as a company that could be affected by the acquisition target’s transaction; and (iii) the trader had been directly involved in the underlying corporate discussions and presentations concerning the employer’s sale. Changing these variables could conceivably produce different results. At what point does “a limited number” of comparable companies become too big a number for information about Company A to be material to Company B (or C, D, or E)? How comparable do Companies A and B need to be? Would the court have reached a different conclusion if analysts and insiders had not mentioned Incyte as a comparable company, or if Panuwat had not been aware of those references?

The summary judgment decision does potentially change – and perhaps expand – the scope of the court’s prior analysis of the breach-of-duty element of insider trading. When the motion to dismiss was decided, many commentators focused on the fact that Medivation’s insider-trading policy had expressly covered “the securities of another publicly-traded company” (apart from Medivation itself), and they speculated on whether the absence of such language might have produced a different result. The summary judgment decision suggests otherwise. The court has now held that, even apart from the Insider Trading Policy and the Confidentiality Agreement, Panuwat had a duty to his employer under “traditional principles of agency law” not to use his employer’s confidential information “for his own personal benefit without disclosing that fact to [the employer].” That duty does not depend on the breadth of the Insider Trading Policy.

Nevertheless, companies and traders, including private funds, should consider whether insider-trading policies and procedures, as well as any relevant nondisclosure agreements, specifically cover securities of third-party companies. The reach of those policies could be determinative – particularly if traditional principles of agency law do not apply – and could influence any trading restrictions or “walls” that companies implement.

Another interesting aspect of this decision is buried in a footnote (note 4), in which the court noted that it had granted leave to Investor Choice Advocates Network to file an amicus brief in support of Panuwat. That brief had raised two arguments, one of which was that the SEC’s “shadow trading” theory violates the “major questions” doctrine, which purportedly prohibits agencies from adopting rules or pursuing enforcement positions on “major questions” without clear statutory authorization from Congress. The court did not find the amicus brief’s arguments “particularly persuasive,” and it observed – without further elaboration – that the summary judgment denial “is not contrary to other courts’ decisions to refrain from issuing a blanket ban on trading based on nonpublic information.”                                                                                        

Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Jonathan Richman Jonathan Richman

Jonathan Richman represents a variety of companies in securities class actions, shareholder derivative actions, internal investigations, SEC investigations, corporate governance, insider trading, D&O insurance and related matters. Many of those matters involve international elements, including representations of non-U.S. issuers in U.S. litigation and…

Jonathan Richman represents a variety of companies in securities class actions, shareholder derivative actions, internal investigations, SEC investigations, corporate governance, insider trading, D&O insurance and related matters. Many of those matters involve international elements, including representations of non-U.S. issuers in U.S. litigation and in landmark non-U.S. collective settlements under Dutch law in the Netherlands. Jonathan’s clients have included Hewlett Packard, Royal Dutch/Shell, Zurich Insurance Group, Halliburton, Waste Management, and Bed Bath & Beyond.

Jonathan writes extensively on topics ranging from securities and insider-trading law, corporate governance and fiduciary issues to non-U.S. law on collective actions. His articles have been published in major legal publications.

Jonathan is the past co-head of the Firm’s Securities Litigation Group.

Class Action and SEC Enforcement Experience

  • Royal Dutch/Shell
  • Global Crossing
  • Waste Management
  • Zurich Insurance Group
  • Vestas Wind Systems A/S (class action only)
  • JBS S.A. (class action only)
  • Henry Schein, Inc. (class action only)
  • YRC Worldwide Inc. (class action only)
  • Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (class action only)
  • Roka Bioscience, Inc. (class action only)
  • Fifth Street (class action only)
  • Vida Longevity Fund (class action only)
  • Former CEO of Lumber Liquidators (class action only)
  • Individual defendant in Third Avenue securities class actions
  • American General (class action only)
  • Metropolitan Life (class action only)
  • New York Life (class action only)
  • Leucadia/Jefferies merger litigation (class action only)
  • Realty Income/American Realty merger litigation (class action only)
  • ARCP/ARCT III merger litigation (class action only)
  • Aberdeen/Artio merger litigation (class action only)
  • PhotoMedex/LCA-Vision merger litigation (class action only)
  • RCS Capital/Summit Financial merger litigation (class action only)
  • First American/First Advantage merger litigation (class action only)
  • SEC inquiry involving CMBS servicing
  • SEC inquiry involving issuer’s confidentiality notice for internal investigations
  • Various SEC, CFTC, and FINRA inquiries involving trading issues

Shareholder Derivative Litigation

  • Hewlett-Packard
  • Royal Dutch/Shell
  • Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.
  • Halliburton Company
  • Waste Management, Inc.
  • Henry Schein, Inc.
  • YRC Worldwide Inc.
  • Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.
  • Fifth Street
  • Vida Longevity Fund
  • Former CEO of Lumber Liquidators
  • Individual defendant in Third Avenue derivative litigation

Department of Justice Proceedings

  • Royal Dutch/Shell
  • Global Crossing
  • Property and casualty insurers


  • Advising outside directors of for-profit educational institution on litigation and regulatory investigations
  • Providing advice and training sessions for clients on insider-trading issues
  • Representing Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico in pending litigation arising from Puerto Rico bankruptcy


  • Author, “Court Preliminarily Enjoins Florida’s ‘Stop Woke Act,’” National Law Review (Aug. 22, 2022)
  • Author, “Blockchain Meets Morrison:  Court Rejects Blockchain Class Settlement Because of Concerns About Adequacy of Representation,” National Law Review (Aug. 16, 2022)
  • Author, “Delaware Supreme Court Allows Use of ‘Reliable’ Hearsay to Support Books-and-Records Demand,” National Law Review (July 20, 2022)
  • Author, “Divided Delaware Supreme Court Decision Highlights Issues About Director Independence in Derivative Actions,” National Law Review (June 30, 2022)
  • Author, “Second Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Securities Claim Alleging Failure to Disclose SEC Investigation,” National Law Review (May 25, 2022)
  • Author, “Ninth Circuit Upholds Delaware-Forum Bylaw That Precludes Assertion of Federal Proxy Claim,” National Law Review (May 13, 2022)
  • Co-author, “SEC Defeats Motion to Dismiss Insider Trading Complaint Alleging Novel ‘Shadow Trading’ Theory, The Corporate Lawyer, vol. 59, no. 3 (Feb. 2022), at 1
  • Co-author, “Seventh Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Derivative Action Based on Forum Clause as Applied to Federal Claim,” National Law Review (Jan. 21, 2022)
  • Author, “California Federal Court Holds U.S. Securities Laws Inapplicable to Unsponsored, Unlisted ADR Transaction Preceded by Purchase of Common Stock Outside the U.S.,” National Law Review (Jan. 10, 2022)
  • Co-author, “SEC Pursues ‘Shadow Trading’ Insider Trading Case,” Corporate Governance Advisor, vo. 29, no. 6 (Nov./Dec. 2021), at 29
  • Co-author, “SEC Investor Advisory Committee Considers Recommendations to Tighten Rules for Insiders’ Trading Plans,” National Law Review (Sept. 7, 2021)
  • Author, “Second Circuit Holds that Accurately Reported Financial Statements Are Not Actionable and that Materiality Has a Half-Life,” National Law Review (Aug. 27, 2021)
  • Author, “First Circuit Adopts Prevailing Standard for Applicability of Federal Securities Laws to Foreign Investors, But Rejects Second Circuit’s Narrower Test,” National Law Review (May 11, 2021)
  • Author, “Second Circuit Upholds Insider Trading Conviction, Finding Sufficient Confidentiality Duty and Personal Benefit,” National Law Review (Apr. 7, 2021)
  • Co-author, “Second Circuit Reaffirms that Federal Securities Laws Do Not Apply to Predominantly Foreign Transactions,” National Law Review (Jan. 26, 2021)
  • Author, “Corporate Scienter Requires Link Between Employees with Knowledge and the Alleged Misstatements,” National Law Review (May 26, 2020)
  • Author, “Delaware Supreme Court Rules that Corporate Charters Can Require Litigation of Federal Securities Act Claims in Federal Court,” National Law Review (Mar. 18, 2020)
  • Author, “California Federal Court Holds that U.S. Securities Laws Apply to Unsponsored, Unlisted ADRs,” National Law Review (Jan. 30, 2020)
  • Author, “Second Circuit Holds that a ‘Personal Benefit’ Is Not Required for Insider Trading Under Criminal Securities Statute,” National Law Review (Jan. 2, 2020)
  • Co-author, “When Passive Investors Drift into Activist Status,” CCR Corp. Deal Lawyers (Nov.-Dec. 2019)
  • Author, “Delaware Supreme Court Rejects Presumption of Confidentiality for Books-and-Records Productions,” National Law Review (Aug. 8, 2019)
  • Author, “Supreme Court Raises Questions About Private Rights of Action Under § 14 of Securities Exchange Act,” National Law Review (Apr. 24, 2019)
  • Author, “Second Circuit Rejects Securities Claims Based on Generic Statements About Ethics and Compliance,” Securities Reform Act Litigation Reporter, vol. 47, no. 1 (April 2019), at 54
  • Author,” Supreme Court Holds that Persons Who Do Not ‘Make’ Misstatements Can Nevertheless Be Liable for Other Securities-Fraud Violations,” National Law Review (Mar. 29, 2019)
  • Author, “The importance of documenting corporate actions: Delaware Supreme Court requires production of emails in books-and-records request,” Westlaw Journal Mergers & Acquisitions (Feb. 2019)
  • Author, “First Appellate Decision Holds that SEC Can Bring Extraterritorial Enforcement Action Based on Conduct or Effects in United States,” National Law Review (Jan. 24, 2019)
  • Author, “Insider Trading for Dummies: Judge Rakoff Tries to Simplify the Law,” National Law Review (Dec. 10, 2018)
  • Co-author, “Fortis Case Confirms Viability of Dutch Settlement Law,” Law360 (July 27, 2018) (with Professor Ianika Tzankova)
  • Author, “Second Circuit Again Holds That Tipper/Tippee Liability Can Arise from a Gift of Inside Information Even Without a Close Personal Relationship,” National Law Review (June 29, 2018)
  • Author, “Supreme Court Rules That Federal Courts Are Not Bound to Give Conclusive Effect to Foreign Governments’ Statements About Their Laws,” National Law Review (June 14, 2018)
  • Author, “Supreme Court Prohibits Stacking of Successive Class Actions Beyond Limitations Period,” National Law Review (June 14, 2018)
  • Author, “Supreme Court Rules That State Courts Can Adjudicate Class Actions Under the Securities Act of 1933,” Securities Arbitration Commentator (April 11, 2018)
  • Author, “Fourth Circuit Upholds Disclosure of Government Subpoena as Evidence of Loss Causation,” National Law Review (Feb. 24, 2018)
  • Author, “Revisiting Preclusion Principles in Derivative Actions,” Law360 (July 28, 2017)
  • Author, “Second Circuit Requires Increased Scrutiny of Securities Class Actions Involving Off-Exchange Transactions,” National Law Review (July 8, 2017)
  • Author, “Dutch Court Denies Approval of Collective Settlement Unless Changes Are Made as to Allocation of Compensation and Fees,” National Law Review (June 19, 2017)
  • Author, “Utah Court Bites Bullet with Dodd-Frank Jurisdiction Ruling,” Law360 (Apr. 13, 2017)
  • Author, “Non-Use Agreement Need Not Precede Disclosure of Confidential Information,” National Law Review (March 21, 2017)
  • Author, “Watch the Napkin: First Circuit Affirms Insider-Trading Conviction,” National Law Review (Feb. 28, 2017)
  • Author, “Dueling Shareholder Class Actions Could Raise Due Process Issues,” Law360 (Jan. 30, 2017)
  • Author, “Supreme Court Reaffirms Personal-Benefit Requirement for Insider Trading,” WestLaw Journal: Securities Litigation & Regulation and WestLaw Journal: White-Collar Crime (Dec. 22, 2016)
  • Author, “Rakoff Addresses Tippee Liability in SEC v. Payton,” Law360 (Dec. 2, 2016)
  • Author, “Dutch Collective Actions vs. Collective Settlements,” National Law Review (Oct. 18, 2016)
  • Author, “Judgment Recognition and the Reach of US Securities Laws,” Law360 (Oct. 3, 2016)
  • Author, “Executives Face SOX Disgorgement Uncertainty After Jensen,” Law360 (Sept. 8, 2016)
  • Author, “Wine, Steak and a Taste of the ‘Personal Benefit’ Tension,” Law360 (June 6, 2016)
  • Author, “Proskauer Explains Supreme Court’s Clarification of Jurisdiction Under Securities Exchange Act,” The CLS Blue Sky Blog (May 24, 2016)
  • Author, “Second Circuit Reinforces Liability Standard in Securities Cases Based on Statements of Opinion,” Business Law Today (Mar. 2016)
  • Author, “The Netherlands Returns as a Collective Settlement Forum,” Law360 (Mar. 15, 2016)
  • Author, “How Morrison v. Australia Bank Was Applied in Petrobras,” Law360 (Feb. 16, 2016)
  • Author, “New York Court Certifies Classes in Petrobras Securities Litigation,” National Law Review (Feb. 3, 2016)
  • Author, “Delaware Court of Chancery Rejects Another Disclosure-Only M&A Settlement and Warns of ‘Increasingly Vigilant’ Scrutiny,” National Law Review (Jan. 25, 2016)
  • Author, “What To Expect from High Court’s New Insider Trading Case,” Law360 (Jan. 19, 2016)
  • Author, “Second Circuit Upholds Common-Interest Privilege for Borrower’s Sharing of Legal Advice with Consortium of Lenders,” Transaction Advisors (Dec. 2015)
  • Author, “What Jarkesy Means for SEC Admin Court Challenges,” Law360 (Sept. 30, 2015)
  • Author, “A Farewell to Alms? Peppercorn Settlements of M&A Litigation,” National Law Review (Sept. 21, 2015)
  • Author, “Seventh Circuit Rejects Court Challenge to Pending SEC Administrative Proceeding,” com (Aug. 27, 2015)
  • Author, “9th Circuit Rebuffs Newman,” Law360 (July 8, 2015)
  • Author, “Proskauer Discusses Supreme Court’s Omnicare Decision, Clarifying Liability for Statements of Opinion in Registration Statements,” The CLS Blue Sky Blog (Mar. 24, 2015)
  • Author, “U.S. Appeals Court Rejects Bright-Line Test for Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Securities Laws,” Bloomberg BNA World Securities Law Report, vol. 20, no. 9 (Sept. 2014)
  • Author, “Whistleblower Anti-Retaliation Provision Does Not Apply Outside the U.S.,” Westlaw Journal Securities Litigation & Regulation, vol. 20, issue 9 (Sept. 4, 2014)
  • Author, “So Much for Bright-Line Tests on Extraterritorial Reach of US Securities Laws?,” Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation (Sept. 2, 2014)
  • Co-author, “Defending Directors: Cram Sheet,” Wolters Kluwer Law & Business (October 23, 2012)
  • Author, “Delaware Chancery Court Issues Decision on Collateral Estoppel in Derivative Suits,” Westlaw Journal Delaware Corporate, vol. 26, issue 25 (June 25, 2012)
  • Author, “SEC Issues Report on Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Securities Laws,” VCExperts on-line publication (June 2012)
  • Co-author, “Fraud? Foreign Purchase? Forget It! ‘Foreign-Cubed’ and Other Foreign-Issuer Cases After Morrison,” of Secs. & Commodities Reg., vol. 44, no. 4 (Feb. 23, 2011)
  • Author, “Supreme Court Clarifies Statute of Limitations in Securities-Fraud Actions,” Derivatives Financial Prods. Rpt., 11, no. 10, at 23 (June 2010)
  • Author, “Transnational Class Actions and Judgment Recognition,” Class Action Litigation Report (June 25, 2010)
  • Co-author, “Pushing the Limits of U.S. Securities Laws: ‘Foreign-Cubed’ (‘F-Cubed’) Cases,” 42 SRLR 10 (March 8, 2010)
  • Co-author, “Assignees Have Discovery Obligations When Asserting Assignors’ Claims,” Journal of Payment Systems Law (June/July 2005)
  • “Punitive Damages: Past, Present and Future,” International Commercial Litigation (July/August 1995)
  • Co-author and editor, Takeovers: Attack and Survival (1987)
  • Co-author, “New Life for State Takeover Statutes?,” New York Law Journal (July 27, 1987)
  • Co-author, “Damages in Defamation Actions,” Damages in Tort Actions (1985)
  • “Facial Adjudication of Disciplinary Provisions in Union Constitutions,” Yale Law Journal (1981)


  • Practising Law Institute: “ESG 2022: What It Means for Boards, Management, and Counsel” (June 1, 2022) (full-day program; program co-chair and panel chair)
  • Practising Law Institute: “ESG 2021: What It Means for Boards, Management, and Counsel” (webcast, June 24, 2021) (full-day program; program co-chair and panel chair)
  • Practising Law Institute: “ESG 2020: What It Means for Boards, Management, and Counsel) (webcast, July 24, 2020) (full-day program; program co-chair and panel chair)
  • Practising Law Institute: “ESG and Promoting Corporate Sustainability” (New York, June 25, 2019) (full-day program; program chair and panel chair)
  • The Mason Judicial Education Program, Symposium for Judges: Securities Class Action Litigation (Arlington, VA, May 5, 2019)
  • The Mason Judicial Education Program, Symposium for Judges: The Economics of Corporate & Securities Law (San Diego, April 12-14, 2018)
  • ABA Section of Litigation: “Recent Developments in Securities Class Actions” (webinar, May 11, 2017)
  • Professional Liability Underwriters Society D&O Symposium: “Behaving Badly: The Non-U.S. Corporate Scandal Wave” (New York, February 9, 2017)
  • New York State Bar Association International Section: “Hot Topics in Cross-Border Securities Litigation” (São Paulo, October 16, 2015)
  • Proskauer Hedge-Fund Breakfast Seminar on Insider Trading (New York, Feb. 5, 2015)
  • CLE International’s 9th Annual Class Action Conference: “Collective Proceedings Abroad: Evolving Approaches & Attitudes” (Washington, D.C., October 2013)
  • Practising Law Institute: “Handling a Securities Case: From Investigation to Trial and Everything in Between” (New York, April 2012)
  • Institutional Investor Educational Foundation: Corporate Governance Roundtable Forum (New York, December 2011)
  • Institutional Investor Educational Foundation Amsterdam Roundtable: “The Netherlands and the Future of European Securities Litigation” (The Hague, September 2011)
  • Summer Institute on Law & Government, American Univ. Washington College of Law: “Securities Class Actions – An Update” (Washington, D.C., June 2010)
  • ABA Section on Litigation Annual Conference: “Global Class Actions: Lasting Peace or Ticking Time Bombs?” (New York, April 2010)