A dispute in California federal court over whether Google must turn over documents stored overseas in response to a search warrant may have major implications for white collar practitioners and their clients. Last week Google asked a California federal judge to review an order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler that required the company to produce content stored outside the United States in response to a warrant. U.S. District Judge William Alsup will hear Google’s motion for de novo review of the order on June 22. In the order at issue, Judge Beeler denied Google’s motion to quash a warrant issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. § 2703. The SCA, in part, requires the disclosure of customer communications or records by internet service providers pursuant to a warrant. The warrant sought documents related to specific Google email accounts, including subscriber information, evidence of specified crimes, and information about the account holders’ true identities, locations, and assets. Google produced information it stored domestically, but argued that the warrant could not reach information stored abroad. Google argued that its legal team in the United States were the only personnel authorized to access and produce the communications, which could be accessed from within the United States. Matter of Search of Content that is Stored at Premises Controlled by Google, No. 16-MC-80263-LB, 2017 WL 1487625, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017). Continue Reading Blurring The Line Between Foreign and Domestic: The Expansion of Search Warrant Powers Overseas
In January of this year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought suit against Taiwan-based D-Link Corp. and its U.S. subsidiary, D-Link Systems Inc, in Los Angeles Federal Court, for failing to properly secure its consumer routers and computer cameras. According to the FTC, the devices were billed as containing “advanced network security” but actually left thousands of devices vulnerable to hacking and compromise. The results of this FTC suit could create a de facto security compliance regime for all purveyors in the ever-growing “internet of things.” Continue Reading Is There Fire Where There’s Smoke? The FTC Says Yes
In the present uncertain legal and regulatory environment, the role of shareholder activists in scrutinizing corporate behavior seems to be gaining steam. See, e.g., An Activist Investment in Whole Foods Exposes Shifting Power on Wall St. We are increasingly seeing corporate internal investigations being influenced, if not driven by, the presence of activists on the Board. It remains to be seen whether the role of activists in policing corporate governance and other corporate regulatory issues will continue to increase in an environment where SEC Enforcement is increasingly under pressure (budgetary and otherwise) from the current presidential administration.
Ramapo, New York Town Supervisor Christopher St. Lawrence heads to trial this week on federal securities fraud charges. St. Lawrence is one of two city officials charged in the case; his codefendant N. Aaron Troodler pleaded guilty earlier last month. The SDNY U.S. Attorney’s Office promoted the Troodler conviction as the first time municipal bond fraud has been successfully prosecuted under federal securities laws. The St. Lawrence trial is expected to draw lots of attention; St. Lawrence is an elected official who has spent nearly two decades at the helm of his town. Continue Reading Municipal Bond Securities Fraud Case Heads to Trial
Recent corporate guilty pleas can be expected to have serious implications for the individual executives and employees alleged to have been involved in the conduct under scrutiny. But there are other factors at play in such cases that can make even more of a difference to the eventual outcomes for individuals than whether their corporate employer pleads guilty or pursues an alternative resolution. Key among these is the extent to which a cooperative relationship can be established between company counsel and individual counsel despite accusations of individual wrongdoing.
Read more in our article posted on Law360: Individual Defense in the Shadow of Corporate Guilty Pleas.
In a company with a robust compliance culture, potential whistleblowers can express their concerns without fear of retribution. By contrast, the penalty for a culture that silences whistleblowers just got steeper. Companies caught punishing those who raise red flags, especially when they turn out to be lawyers, could be forced to confront documents otherwise inadmissible against the company due to attorney-client privilege. Continue Reading Revenge of the Whistle-blower: Possible Consequences of Compliance Failures
After a series of compliance failures leading to the resignation of company’s CEO, the privately-held health care brokerage company Zenefits was just hit with a $7 million dollar settlement by the California Department of Insurance (DIR). The terms of the settlement may reflect a new trend in compliance enforcement, namely that regulators are trading monetary penalties for oversight over privately-held companies. Continue Reading Steep Fines for Company With Compliance Problems, but Recognition of Remediation Efforts May Provide Model Going Forward
On December 6, 2016, after nearly twenty years of silence on insider trading, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Ninth Circuit in holding that prosecutors need not show that a tipster received a pecuniary or other tangible benefit for providing inside information where the insider and trader are close friends or relatives. Salman v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 15-628.
Salman was convicted for trading on information received from his friend, Michael Kara, who had in turn received the information from his brother and Salman’s brother-in-law, Maher Kara, a former Citigroup investment banker. Although Salman was not the insider, he was convicted based on so-called “tippee liability,” where the insider discloses nonpublic information to an outsider (a “tippee”) who then trades on the basis of the information, as established by the Supreme Court in its landmark Dirks decision. Dirks v. S.E.C., 463 U.S. 646 (1983). Under Dirks, a tippee can be liable for insider trading provided the insider received a “personal benefit” from tipping the information, which benefit may be inferred where the tipper receives something of value in exchange for the tip or “makes a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend.”
The announcement that San Francisco private company Hampton Creek faces an SEC inquiry related to their alleged “buyback” program of vegan mayo comes as no shock. See reporting on Bloomberg. As soon as the facts were initially reported it seemed only a matter of time until the regulators, who have been looking for a poster child (or rather, a whole class of poster children) of private company enforcement in the Bay Area, swooped in. Continue Reading Developments in SEC Private Company Enforcement: Sophisticated VC’s in the Role of Victim
We noted with interest the latest moves by some Bay Area tech giants to permit their employees to sell restricted stock to help them realize the stock value as part of their compensation: See New York Times reporting here. It should come as no surprise that private company employees in our tech economy rely on their potential restricted stock value as an important part of their compensation package, and also their decision whether to work for, or stay working for, one of the “hot” pre-IPO companies (which are legion in Northern California). What may surprise private companies is that this kind of restricted stock sale by employees creates a very easy “in” for the SEC to bring a case should any hidden compliance failures or fraud later be revealed. Continue Reading Private Company Employee Stock Sales Highlight Hidden Dangers of Compliance Failures