insuranceneeds.in

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Friday, 21 May 2010

Securities Law - Wells Notice

Posted on 10:09 by Unknown
A Wells Notice advises a public company or a principal officer of a public company that the Securities & Exchange Commission is considering enforcement action because of some alleged violation of the Securities Laws. The company or individual is given a chance to respond and explain why enforcement action should not be brought. Not all Wells’ Notices lead to enforcement action. The term “Wells Notice” is named after Senator John Wells, who in 1972 chaired a committee to review SEC enforcement procedures.

Goldman Sachs received a Wells Notice in July 2009 in connection with the sale by Goldman Sachs of a synthetic collateralized debt obligation known as Abascus 2007-AC-1. The notice was not disclosed to shareholders or otherwise made public. Corporate lawyers believe that it depends on the facts whether a Wells Notice should be disclosed. Plaintiff’s lawyers generally take the position that such notices should be disclosed because they are material. In other words an SEC investigation has proceeded to the point that the staff is considering proceeding against the company or a principle officer. Two class actions have been filed so far against Goldman Sachs alleging, among other things, that the Wells Notice was concealed from investors.

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal dated April 10, 2010, five Senior Executives of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., including the firm’s co-general counsel, sold $65.3 million worth of stock after the firm received notice of possible fraud charges, which later drove its stock down 13%. There is no suggestion in the article that those executives had any knowledge of the Wells Notice.

The SEC has alleged in the well-publicized case against Goldman Sachs that the firm made misrepresentations and material omissions in the marketing in 2007 of a collateralized debt obligation known Abascus 2007 AC-1.

The public will learn much more about Wells Notices after there is further disclosures by either Goldman Sachs or the SEC.

Ira Schochet, a partner in the New York law firm of LaBaton, Sucharow LLP, responded to the argument that disclosing Wells Notices just repeats unproven allegations.
However, Schochet stated that if there is a substantial defense, issuers can disclose that as well. Schochet is also President of the National Associations of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys, a group of about 100 law firms that represent investors and consumers.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to Facebook
Posted in | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • The Private Right of Action Under Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)5
    Sometimes it is worth reviewing the basics. How is it that an investor can bring a Section 10b-5 claim against a company and/or its officer...
  • Securities Law - The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
    The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform And Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”) is a massive revision of the way in which financial services are f...
  • The Dodd-Frank Act Has Expanded SEC Enforcement Powers
    The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act has significantly expanded SEC enforcement powers. All of the expanded powers...
  • Illinois Court Rejects Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurance Broker
    Insurance brokers have a fiduciary duty to their clients. However, according to the Illinois Appellate Court, that fiduciary duty only appli...
  • Securities Law - SEC Appeals Adverse Mark Cuban Ruling
    Earlier this year, see below entry of September 18, 2009, the Northern District of Texas dismissed the SEC’s complaint, alleging insider tra...
  • LLC Operating Agreement Defeats Unjust Enrichment and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims
    WOSS, LLC v. 218 ECKFORD, LLC, 102 AD 3d 860 - NY: Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. 2013 - Google Scholar : The plaintiff LLC was a member of the d...
  • The Sad Tale of Norvergence Illustrates the Unique Law Applicable to Finance Companies
    Most people think that if a product does not work, you should not have to pay for it. This is usually true. It is not true when a finance ...
  • LLC Question - Does The LLC Have To Buy The Interest Of A Departing member?
    CONCORDIA PARTNERS, LLC v. Ward, Dist. Court, D. Maine 2013 - Google Scholar : The typical LLC operating agreement contains a provision gove...
  • Business Debts - The Bankruptcy Court Will Not Discharge A Debt Where The Underlying Loan Was Procured Through Fraud
    In Ojeda v. Goldberg , No. 09-2008, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a determination of the District Court (Judge Gottschall) that a debt was no...
  • Urologists take investment battle to court - Health Care News - Crain's Chicago Business
    Urologists take investment battle to court - Health Care News - Crain's Chicago Business : 'via Blog this'

Categories

  • Business Advice
  • Collection Law
  • Consumer Rights
  • Contract Law
  • Corporate Law
  • Creditor Rights
  • Federal Arbitration Act
  • Federal Rules of Evidence
  • Fraud Claims
  • Fraudulent Transfer
  • Insurance Coverage Disputes
  • Internet Collection Scam
  • Limited Liability Company Issues
  • Litigation Issues
  • Moorman Doctrine
  • Mortgage Foreclosure
  • Noncompetition Agreements
  • Personal Jurisdiction
  • Securities Law
  • Shareholder Derivative Actions
  • Too Many Lawyers and Too Many Law Students
  • Uniform Commercial Code

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (27)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (5)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (4)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2012 (34)
    • ►  December (5)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2011 (40)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (5)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (5)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ▼  2010 (36)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ▼  May (3)
      • Securities Law - Wells Notice
      • Business Debts - The Bankruptcy Court Will Not Dis...
      • Securities Law - Statute of Limitations Decision -...
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (4)
    • ►  February (4)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2009 (18)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (4)
  • ►  2008 (1)
    • ►  September (1)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile