A federal jury in California agreed with the SEC that a corporate official engaged in insider trading when he purchased securities of a company based on material nonpublic information (“MNPI”) about a different company. The April 5, 2024 verdict for the SEC in SEC v. Panuwat (N.D. Cal.) could embolden the SEC to pursue more claims of “shadow trading,” which involves trading the securities of a public company that is not the direct subject of the MNPI but whose stock price allegedly would be affected by that news.

The Panuwat case, which survived motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and has now produced a verdict in favor of the SEC, does not appear to break new ground under the misappropriation theory of insider trading in light of the particular facts presented. But the “shadow trading” theory focuses heightened attention on the types of nonpublic information that might be deemed material and on the duties that can exist by virtue of policies, agreements, contracts, and employment relationships.

Factual Background

The SEC brought 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 about to be acquired by a very large pharmaceutical firm and that, seven minutes after receiving an email from Medivation’s CEO reporting that the potential acquiror was ready to sign a deal that weekend, Panuwat had purchased call options on securities issued by Incyte, another biopharmaceutical company that allegedly shared Medivation’s general market space but was not a competitor.

The SEC contended 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 rise as a result. The market facts appeared to support 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 court denied Panuwat’s pretrial motions to dismiss and for summary judgment.  In ruling on those motions (especially the summary judgment motion), the court held that:

  • The SEC had sufficiently established a factual dispute about whether information about the impending Medivation acquisition was material to Incyte.
  • 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 had known (i) the identities of the companies that had submitted bids to buy Medivation, (ii) the amount of those bids, and (iii) that the bidding process “was pushing up the sale price.”  He also had known that the ultimate buyer wanted to announce a final deal on August 22, and he had known 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.”
  • A factual dispute existed as to whether Panuwat had read his CEO’s email reporting that the buyer was ready to sign a deal.
  • The SEC had sufficiently adduced evidence – under three independent theories – that Panuwat had breached “some fiduciary, contractual, or similar obligation” to Medivation when he bought the Incyte call options:
  • Medivation’s Insider Trading Policy 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);
  • Panuwat had signed a Confidentiality Agreement that required him not to use Medivation’s confidential information for his personal benefit; and
  • 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 alleged breach of duty did not depend on either the Insider Trading Policy or the Confidentiality Agreement; it arose from common-law agency principles, which Panuwat could be deemed to have breached when he used for his personal benefit certain confidential information entrusted to him by his employer “without disclosing that fact to Medivation.”

The Trial

The jury trial lasted eight days and included evidence showing that:

  • Medivation and Incyte were both oncology companies but were not competitors or business partners.
  • The market had been generally aware of Medivation’s sale process and its progress but had not known proposed sale prices or the exact timing of interested parties’ bids.
  • Analysts 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 the analysis of the potential impact of a sale.
  • The sale process was confidential within Medivation, with code names assigned to all involved parties.
  • The materials prepared by Medivation’s investment banker had analyzed Medivation’s position relative to that of other biopharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, and Panuwat had received those materials. The information about the other companies on the banker’s list had been publicly available.
  • The banker testified that the list of other companies “was our best attempt to define peer group because there weren’t direct comparables. . . .  This is not an industry like Coke and Pepsi where they’re directly comparable and they compete for one another’s dollar.”
  • On August 18, 2016, Medivation’s CEO sent an email to Panuwat and twelve other 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 out-of-the-money 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.
  • Those purchases cost Panuwat $117,000 – approximately half his annual salary.
  • The Medivation acquisition was announced four days later, on August 22, and Incyte’s stock price rose that day by 7.7%.
  • An SEC economist testified that, “when one company in an industry announces a merger, other companies in the industry typically have a positive stock price reaction to that.” The witness said she had analyzed Incyte’s stock-price movement on the day the Medivation acquisition was announced and had found that “it was not caused by normal fluctuations, it was too big for that.”
  • Two days after the Medivation acquisition was announced, Panuwat started selling his Incyte securities for $240,000, earning a profit of approximately $123,000.
  • Panuwat testified that he likely would have made exactly the same trades at exactly the same time even if he had not received the CEO’s email about the impending acquisition.  He said he had become interested in investing in Incyte because of a Goldman Sachs report in July 2016 recommending the purchase of Incyte call options before the company issued its earnings report on August 9 (nine days before Panuwat bought the options).  Panuwat had not invested before the earnings announcement, but he testified that he had read the earnings report, which he considered “quite favorable,” and had watched the stock price decline in subsequent days.
  • Panuwat testified that he had invested $117,000 – the largest trade he had ever made until that time – because, earlier in the year, he had earned money on other trades and wanted to reinvest to minimize taxes on those trading gains.
  • Panuwat conceded that he had not previously told SEC investigators about the Goldman Sachs recommendation or his tax strategy as the asserted reasons for buying the call options.  And he had testified in a deposition that he did not remember why he had decided to trade Incyte securities in August 2016:  “I don’t recall there being a specific event around that time.”
  • Panuwat testified at trial that he had not thought even “for one second” that his trading violated the securities laws.

The Jury Verdict

The jury was required to determine whether Panuwat had owed a duty of “trust, confidence or confidentiality” to Medivation and whether, as a result of his employment, he had possessed nonpublic information that was material to Incyte. The jury also needed to assess whether Panuwat had purchased the Incyte call options on the basis of that nonpublic information and whether he had “acted recklessly” in doing so.

The jury deliberated a little more than two hours and rendered a verdict in favor of the SEC. We would expect to see an appeal and, perhaps, post-verdict motions. Stay tuned.


The jury’s verdict, like the prior court rulings in favor of the SEC, 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. The SEC might now be encouraged to pursue more such cases because the SEC appears to believe – and certain academic literature has suggested – that “shadow trading” occurs with some frequency.

The Panuwat verdict, like the prior court decisions, seems to have been fact-specific. For example, the jury’s materiality analysis presumably considered evidence showing 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) analysts had specifically cited the third party as a company that could be affected by the acquisition target’s transaction; (iii) the acquisition target’s investment banker had included the third party in the banker’s transaction analysis; and (iv) the trader had been directly involved in the underlying confidential corporate discussions and presentations concerning his employer’s sale.  In addition, the SEC’s witnesses testified that the third party’s stock price was likely to be, and in fact was, positively affected by news of the Medivation acquisition.  Changing any of those variables might have produced a different result.

But even though the specific facts presumably mattered to the jury, the Panuwat case cautions against taking too narrow a view of whether nonpublic information might be material – especially when materiality will be assessed in hindsight, and likely after the trader has profited from or avoided a loss on a transaction. Panuwat should encourage prospective traders to take a broader view of materiality and to consider the extent to which MNPI about one company might be material to a second company, even if the second company is not a direct competitor or business partner of the first one. Prospective traders might want to consider broader market contexts, such as the identities of competitors or alternatives, or, as in this case, the number of companies in a particular market sector (here, “mid-cap” oncology companies).

The Panuwat case should also cause prospective traders to think about the scope of any duties that might apply to them – and that they therefore might breach if they trade on MNPI.  The court here concluded in its summary judgment ruling that three independent duties could apply to Panuwat:  (i) his duties under Medivation’s Insider Trading Policy, which prohibited trading “the securities of another publicly-traded company” based on MNPI obtained through his Medivation employment, (ii) his duties under Medivation’s Confidentiality Agreement, and (iii) his common-law employment duties, which imposed “a duty of trust and confidence” on him when he was entrusted with confidential information, and which prohibited him from using that information for his personal benefit “without disclosing that fact to” his employer.

The employment-related duties likely will not apply to nonemployee traders, such as companies, private funds, or other organizations.  If such an entity uses its own MNPI for its own benefit, it would not be subject to the employment-related duty that bound Panuwat when he used his employer’s MNPI for his personal benefit.

But companies or funds could have contractual duties to the source of the MNPI, and those agreements could limit the use of MNPI obtained pursuant to those agreements.  A company or fund thus could conceivably be viewed as engaging in “shadow trading” under the misappropriation theory if it trades a third-party company’s securities while subject to an agreement that specifically prohibits trading the securities of other companies.  A “shadow trading” issue might arise even under an agreement that more broadly prohibits the use of MNPI for any purpose other than that of the agreement.

Companies and traders, including private funds, therefore should carefully consider the terms of insider-trading policies and procedures, as well as any relevant contracts and nondisclosure agreements, to determine whether any of those materials cover securities of third-party issuers or place any other limitations on the use of MNPI obtained under those policies or agreements.  The reach of those policies and agreements could be determinative and could influence any trading restrictions or “walls” that companies implement.

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)