Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

In the Courts

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
January 30, 2007

SEC Filings Cannot Support Fraud Conviction Without a Showing of Falsity

In United States v. Lake, ” F.3d ”, 2007 WL 30038 (10th Cir. Jan. 5, 2007), the Tenth Circuit held that convictions that depended on the falsity of required reports to the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) must be set aside because the government failed to show that the information allegedly omitted from the reports was required, and therefore did not show that the reports were false or fraudulent.

Defendants, former executives in an energy company, were convicted in a jury trial of wire fraud, money laundering, circumvention of internal financial controls, and conspiracy. All the counts of the indictment stemmed from the defendants' alleged personal use of company aircraft, and their subsequent failure to report that use to the SEC. Specifically, the government alleged that submitting required, but deceptive, reports to the SEC constitutes mail fraud. On appeal the Tenth Circuit set aside the convictions. The court explained that the government never established that the defendants failed to comply with SEC regulations and that the jury was never instructed on the SEC's reporting requirements. The court held that the reports could not be shown to be false or misleading without a showing that reporting the withheld information was required. Because no such showing was made, the convictions for wire fraud and money laundering were set aside without the opportunity for retrial. The circumvention and conspiracy charges were set aside on other grounds and may be retried.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.