Search

Stradling

White Collar Criminal Defense

  • March 2018

    Jason de Bretteville Quoted in Westlaw Journal Regarding the Supreme Court’s Decision in Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund

    Jason de Bretteville, chair of Stradling’s White Collar Criminal Defense practice group and co-chair of the firm’s Enforcement Defense & Investigations practice group, was quoted by Westlaw Journal regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Cyan Inc. et al. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund et al, a class action lawsuit alleging that the telecommunications systems supplier misrepresented its sales figures before its IPO. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that “state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over class-action lawsuits that only allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933.”
  • December 2017

    Supreme Court to Treat Burwell Infection

    Shareholder Jason de Bretteville and associate Sheila S. Mojtehedi wrote an article for the Westlaw Journal (Delaware Corporate and Corporate Officers & Directors Liability) discussing the possible impact of Digital Realty Trust v. Somers, a recently argued U.S. Supreme Court appeal of a 9th Circuit decision that extended anti-retaliation protection to corporate insiders who blow the whistle internally but do not notify the government.
  • December 2016

    In Wake of Salman, Friendship is Key Question For Insider Trading Liability

    White Collar Defense shareholder Jason de Bretteville and associate Kenny Hsu were published in the Westlaw Journal’s Corporate Officers and Directors Liability Expert Analysis section with their post mortem analysis of the Supreme Court’s December 6, 2016 decision in Salman v. United States.

  • November 2016

    Supreme Court Revisits Insider Trading’s Personal Benefit Requirement

    White Collar Defense shareholder Jason de Bretteville and associate Kenny Hsu were published in the Westlaw Journal’s White Collar Crime Litigation News and Analysis section with their expert analysis of the much anticipated oral arguments in Salman v. United States. In the article, “Supreme Court Revisits Insider Trading’s Personal Benefit Requirement,” de Bretteville and Hsu argue that a majority of the court appeared to be reluctant to break from precedent and would likely “be comfortable with reaffirming — or at most, slightly clarifying — the standards for imposing liability that existed before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ landmark decision in United States v. Newman.”