U.S. Court of Appeals

Subscribe to U.S. Court of Appeals via RSS

Well – this took four months. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordered en banc rehearing of an unsuccessful challenge to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s approval of the Nasdaq Stock Market’s rules concerning diversity of directors on boards of Nasdaq-listed companies. The rules – which a panel of the Fifth Circuit upheld in October 2023 – require listed companies to disclose director-diversity information and either to have a certain number of diverse directors or to explain why not. We blogged about that decision here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied review of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s approval of proposed rules promulgated by the Nasdaq Stock Market concerning the diversity of directors on Nasdaq-listed companies’ boards. The rules require listed companies to disclose director-diversity information and either to have a certain number of diverse directors or to explain why not. The decision in Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. SEC held that the rules do not violate the Constitution and that the SEC did not violate its statutory obligations in approving them.

The Nasdaq rules do not require board diversity; they require only disclosures and explanations. But the need to comply with the rules could have the practical effect of increasing diversity on boards of Nasdaq-listed companies.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reaffirmed yesterday that the federal securities laws do not apply to “predominantly foreign” securities transactions even if those transactions might have taken place in the United States.  The ruling in Cavello Bay Reinsurance Ltd. v. Shubin Stein (No. 20-1371) reinforces the Second Circuit’s prior decisions concerning the scope of the transaction-based test that the U.S. Supreme Court announced in Morrison v. National Australia Bank in an effort to curb the extraterritorial application of the federal securities laws.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit yesterday affirmed the dismissal of a securities class action alleging misrepresentations arising from generalized statements about an issuer’s compliance efforts and Code of Ethics. The decision in Singh v. Cigna Corporation held that such generic statements are not material because a reasonable investor could not have relied on them as representations of regulatory compliance. 

The Fourth Circuit ruled yesterday that a plaintiff can sufficiently plead loss causation to establish a securities-fraud claim based on an “amalgam” of two theories:  corrective disclosure, and materialization of a concealed risk.  In so holding, the court concluded in Singer v. Reali that the issuer’s disclosure of a government subpoena and an analyst’s report discussing that subpoena collectively revealed sufficient additional information to connect the company’s alleged misstatements and omissions to the subsequent 40% stock-price drop.

Because of the Fourth Circuit’s “amalgam” analysis, it is unclear whether and, if so, to what extent the Singer decision is in tension with decisions by other Courts of Appeals holding that disclosures of governmental investigations or internal investigations do not, without more, sufficiently establish loss causation for pleading purposes.  Various appellate courts appear to be putting their own refinements on the analysis, and the law might not be entirely settled on this issue.

Terrorist attacks, most recently in London and Manchester, England, have raised the pressure on law enforcement and lawmakers in countries like the U.K. and the U.S., to proactively intercept and interrupt terrorist communications. On May 24, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism addressed practical issues regarding warrants for overseas data in a hearing titled “Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Across Borders.” 

In what appears to be the first appellate decision since the Supreme Court’s December 2016 ruling in Salman v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed an insider-trading conviction based on a tip of material, nonpublic information. The February 24, 2017 decision in United States v. Bray held that the jury had sufficient evidence to conclude that, in soliciting and receiving a trading tip surreptitiously written on a pub-room napkin, the tippee had known that the tipper had provided the information in breach of his duty of confidentiality and in expectation of a personal benefit.

However, the court also made clear that a tippee cannot be criminally convicted for insider trading if he merely “should have known” of the tipper’s breach of duty. The court further held that a “willful blindness” or “conscious avoidance” standard cannot be based on mere negligence (at least in a criminal case).