He leads dispute resolution efforts in connection with regulatory investigations and enforcement actions brought by the SEC, DOJ, FINRA (formerly NASD and NYSE), CFTC, the OCC and most of the state regulators throughout the nation.When clients are faced with parallel proceedings among regulators and civil litigants, Mr. 19, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of securities fraud and insider trading claims arising out of options backdating. Plaintiffs were a putative class of investors who purchased stock in Jabil Circuit, Inc., a publicly traded electronics and technology company, from September 19, 2001 through December 21, 2007. Fifth, plaintiffs alleged that the individual defendants were liable as controlling persons of Jabil under Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act, 15 U. As a result, the district court held that plaintiffs failed to plead both falsity and scienter (intent to commit fraud) sufficiently to satisfy the heightened pleading requirements of the Reform Act.
Plaintiffs asserted five sets of claims against Jabil and certain of its senior officers. The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the district court that defendants were shielded from liability by the “safe harbor” provision of the Reform Act for forward-looking statements.
First, plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false statements regarding the accounting for employee stock options in Jabil’s periodic SEC filings in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”), 15 U. As long as a forward-looking statement is accompanied by meaningful cautionary language, the Court recognized, the speaker is protected from liability irrespective of his state of mind.
Also includes links to selected real-world contract forms. The INCOTERMS® are "a series of pre-defined commercial terms published by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) [that are] widely used in international commercial transactions …. the purpose of corroboration [is] to prevent fraud, by providing independent confirmation of the [witness's] testimony." See Sandt Technology, Ltd. Resco Metal & Plastics Corp., 264 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. 2001) (affirming relevant part of summary judgment; internal quotation marks and citation omitted). (b) Except as otherwise stated below, for information to be considered Confidential Information, the information must: (1) be set forth (or summarized) in tangible form (including for example an electronic storage device); and (2) be marked with a reasonably-prominent, visually-readable notice such as (for example) "Confidential information of [name]" or "Subject to NDA." In assessing whether a disclosing party in fact maintained particular information in confidence, a court very likely will give significant weight to whether the disclosing party caused the information to be marked as confidential. In many situations, these "standard" precautions are likely to satisfy the disclosing party's desires, but for some types of Confidential Information, a disclosing party might want to insist on special precautions — especially in the era of criminal hackers, and even state actors, breaking into insufficiently-secure computer systems and stealing valuable information, such as happened to Sony Pictures Entertainment, allegedly at the hands of North Korea, and to Home Depot, which booked a charge of $161 million after a 2014 theft of customers' credit-card data. (1) will not waive or otherwise affect the Disclosing Party's ability to enforce its other intellectual-property rights (for example, copyrights and patents) against the Receiving Party except to the extent, if any, that the parties expressly agree otherwise in writing; and (2) will not affect any obligation of confidentiality imposed by law.
Free for (limited) use under a Creative Commons license. [for] the transportation and delivery of goods." (Wikipedia.com). Another useful patent-law analogy might the requirement of corroboration to support an assertion that an issued patent is invalid due to prior public use. In the Seventh Circuit's Fail-Safe case, the court pointedly noted that the plaintiff had not marked its information as confidential; the court affirmed the district court's summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim of misappropriation. A disclosing party should always insist on imposing confidentiality obligations on a receiving party; otherwise, a court is likely to hold hold that the disclosing party had failed to make reasonable efforts to protect its confidential information. For the avoidance of doubt, the Receiving Party's undertaking of the obligations of the Agreement concerning Confidential Information is not intended and should not be interpreted as in itself establishing a confidential‑ or fiduciary relationship between the parties.
Securities Litigation and Arbitration, Securities Regulation and Compliance, Insurance Agents Defense - Property Casualty, Health and Life, Professional Liability Litigation, Labor and Employment, Directors and Officers, Commercial and Business Litigation Brandon S.