Insights
Search Results
News Articles
9.11.23
Numerous Wilson Sonsini Attorneys Named to 2024 Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America
On September 8, 2023, Lawdragon released the 2024 edition of its Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America guide assessing America’s top talent among those who represent corporations and other wealthy entities in litigation involving antitrust; financial and securities litigation; intellectual property; commercial; real estate; M&A and Chancery; cybersecurity and data privacy; and white collar and investigations. Attorneys were selected based on journalistic research, submissions, and vetting.
News Articles
10.05.22
Wilson Sonsini Attorneys Named to Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America
On October 3, 2022, Lawdragon released its inaugural guide Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America dedicated to attorneys who excel at representing corporations and other organizations in litigating claims involving antitrust, securities, financial, M&A, intellectual property and patents, product liability, mass tort, white collar, government investigations, and energy disputes. Attorneys were selected based on a number of submissions and independent research focused on recent cases and defense verdicts or settlements, as well as attorneys who have sustained excellence in trials.
News Articles
12.16.21
Wilson Sonsini Receives Honorable Mention in The American Lawyer's 2021 Litigation Department of the Year Recognitions
On December 14, 2021, The American Lawyer published a list of Honorable Mentions for the nationwide 2021 Litigation Department of the Year recognitions. Wilson Sonsini was profiled among the eight firms deserving of honorable mention.
Alerts
9.22.21
Ninth Circuit Cuts Shareholders More Slack on Section 11 Claims
In the past several years, the number of claims filed against newly public companies under the Securities Act of 1933 has increased significantly.1 At the same time, the development of direct listings has given companies seeking to list their shares on exchanges an alternative to the traditional initial public offering. These trends converged with the litigation filed against Slack Technologies, challenging its direct listing under the Securities Act.2 Earlier this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed a district court decision finding that shareholders had standing under the Securities Act to challenge statements made in Slack's direct listing registration statement. The result, if it remains undisturbed, raises some troubling questions for defendants.
Alerts
4.20.21
SEC Addresses Accounting Treatment for SPAC Warrants
On April 12, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published a joint statement by John Coates, Acting Director of the Division of Corporation Finance, and Paul Munter, Acting Chief Accountant, which provides their view on the accounting treatment of warrants issued by special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs). This statement, titled Staff Statement on Accounting and Reporting Considerations for Warrants Issued by Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs),1 suggests that the SEC staff has concerns that the warrants issued by many SPACs should be properly accounted for under the liability method on the balance sheet. As such, the staff advises that companies with these outstanding warrants (whether SPACs or the combined company following a de-SPAC transaction) consider the need to amend previously-filed audited and unaudited financial statements.
Client Highlights
10.17.18
Federal Securities Class Action Lawsuit Against USANA Health Sciences Dismissed, With Prejudice
On October 17, 2018, the U.S. Court of the District of Utah, issued a ruling that dismissed, with prejudice, a federal securities class action lawsuit filed against USANA Health Sciences and individual defendants. The ruling represents a complete victory for the defendants. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati represented USANA in the matter.
Alerts
6.07.17
U.S. Supreme Court Rules That SEC Disgorgement Is Subject to a Five-Year Limit
The U.S Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has frequently used disgorgement as a tool to strip wrongdoers of ill-gotten gains. The aim of disgorgement is to return the wrongdoer to the position he or she was in before the violation occurred and to prevent the wrongdoer from being unjustly enriched by their misconduct. On June 5, 2017, in Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission,1the U.S. Supreme Court placed an important limitation on the SEC's ability to impose disgorgement.