Insights Search

In 2016, a new play called Hamilton was dominating Broadway, Pokémon Go was all the rage, and the Summer Olympics were held in Rio.

The Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) have released final regulations designating so-called “basis-shifting” transactions among related parties as “transactions of interest.”

On November 19, 2024, Vinson & Elkins LLP hosted an event on how the regulatory landscape may develop during the incoming Trump administration.

In the final decision of the Supreme Court’s term, the Court again considered the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).

For more than a decade, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has been able to bring enforcement actions in either federal court or the agency’s internal venue.

On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that, in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement, a failure to disclose information required by Item 303 of Regulation S-K (“Item 303”[i]) does not support a private action under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (“Section 10(b)”).

On February 8, 2024, in its Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a whistleblower pursuing a claim for retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) does not need to show that the employer acted with “retaliatory intent.”

On September 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to weigh in on the validity of a familiar allegation in private securities litigation—that a failure to disclose under Item 303 of Regulation S-K (“Item 303”) supports a claim of securities fraud.

The Supreme Court of the United States recently considered whether portions of the Lanham Act that relate to trademark infringement can be applied to conduct that takes place outside the United States.

On January 13, 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in two consolidated cases from the Seventh Circuit to consider whether a defendant relying on an objectively reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous law acts “knowingly” in violation of the False Claims Act (“FCA”).