Blake Osborn is a managing associate in the Los Angeles office and a member of the White Collar, Investigations, Securities Litigation and Compliance Group. He represents clients in complex civil litigation in state and federal courts, including class actions, business disputes, securities fraud claims, shareholder derivative suits, investment disputes, and SEC enforcement actions.
Blake's practice in complex litigation matters focuses on defending companies, officers and directors in class actions, business disputes and regulatory proceedings and investigations in state, federal, and appellate courts throughout the country. He has represented these companies, directors and officers in various arenas, including matters involving emerging tech companies, software, securities fraud, public entities, accounting fraud, insider trading, and alter ego.
Blake has also dedicated significant time to pro bono representations in civil rights, unlawful detainer and domestic violence cases. His pro bono work has included first chairing a Section 1983 trial and oral argument before the California Court of Appeals.
Before joining Orrick, Blake worked as a Deputy Public Defender in Orange County. In that capacity, Blake individually tried 12 misdemeanor cases, argued more than 20 motions, and managed an extensive case load by representing clients at pretrial conferences.
Notable representations include:
- Representation of leading self-driving tech startup in business dispute and related merger and acquisition.
- Representation of leading media and digital video recording company in business dispute.
- Representation of owner and chairman of a leading entertainment and media company in corporate governance litigation.
- Representation of major software and hardware company in issues related to a patent-infringement trial.
- Representation of emerging electronic commerce company in business dispute.
- Representation of major software company in shareholder derivative action in Delaware.
- Conducted internal investigation on behalf of public entity concerning potential violations of whistleblower protection act and allegations of misconduct.
- Representation of international trust entities and Singapore-based public company in action alleging alter ego and RICO liability.
- Representation of former President and COO of Countrywide Financial Corp. in connection with various federal and state securities lawsuits.
- Representation of founder and CEO of United Kingdom-based automobile service and repair business in shareholder litigation.
- Representation of Big Four accounting firm in state court litigation stemming from the Madoff fraud.
- Representation of city employee in connection with SEC action over alleged misstatements in connection with the issuance of municipal bonds.
- Representation of mobile device company in connection with securities shareholder class action and derivative action.
- Representation of medical device company in connection with shareholder class action alleging violations of securities fraud.
- Representation of global venture investor in various business litigation disputes.
Last week, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, imploring the court to reconsider a divided panel’s ruling on the unconstitutionality of its administrative law judges in Bandimere v. SEC. In that ruling (detailed here), the Tenth Circuit overturned the Commission’s sanctions against Mr. Bandimere because the SEC administrative law judge (“ALJ”) presiding over Mr. Bandimere’s case was an inferior officer who should have been constitutionally appointed (rather than hired) to the position, in violation of the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution.
Primarily relying on its prior submissions and Judge Monroe G. McKay’s dissent in the panel’s original ruling, the SEC argues that the original decision reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of ALJs and Supreme Court precedent, and risks throwing essential features of the agency into disarray. In particular, the SEC questioned the majority’s opinion that Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), was dispositive in equating special trial judges of tax court to the ALJs to find that the ALJs are inferior officers who must be constitutionally appointed. The SEC distinguishes the roles of its ALJs from those of the special tax court trial judges by noting differences in their power and function. First, the special trial judges are vested with authority, including the power to enforce compliance with their orders, that is different in degree and kind from the powers given to ALJs. For example, both the special trial judges and ALJs have the power to issue subpoenas, but unlike the special trial judges, ALJs have no authority to enforce subpoenas. ALJs can only request the Commission to seek enforcement of the subpoenas in district court. In addition, unlike the special trial judges, ALJs cannot use contempt power—a hallmark of a court—to enforce any order it may issue. Second, the function between the special trial judges and ALJs differ because the Tax Court in Freytag was required to defer to the special trial judge’s factual finding unless “clearly erroneous, whereas the SEC decides all questions of fact and law de novo.
Just before the clock struck 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit weighed in on the constitutionality of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC” or “Commission”) administrative law judges. In Bandimere v. SEC, the Tenth Circuit overturned Commission sanctions against Mr. Bandimere because the SEC administrative law judge (“ALJ”) presiding over Mr. Bandimere’s case was an inferior officer who should have been constitutionally appointed to the position in violation of the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution.
The SEC originally brought an administrative action against Mr. Bandimere in 2012, alleging he violated various securities laws. An SEC ALJ presided over the fast paced, “trial-like” hearing, and the ALJ ultimately found Mr. Bandimere liable, barred him from the securities industry, imposed civil penalties and ordered disgorgement. The SEC reviewed that decision and reached the same result. Mr. Bandimere, therefore, appealed the SEC’s decision to the Tenth Circuit. READ MORE
The Ninth Circuit recently revived a securities class action against Arena Pharmaceuticals, issuing a decision with important guidance to pharmaceutical companies speaking publicly about future prospects for FDA approval of their advanced drug candidates. The court’s opinion reemphasizes the dangers of volunteering incomplete information, holding that a company that touts the results of trials or tests as supportive of a pending application for FDA approval must also disclose negative test results or concerns expressed by the FDA about those studies—even if the company reasonably believes the concerns are unfounded and are the product of a good faith disagreement.
On September 12, 2016, the SEC announced that it had reached a settlement with Jun Ping Zhang (“Ping”), a former executive of a Chinese subsidiary of Harris Corporation (“Harris”), regarding alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). The settlement was unusual, in that the SEC declined to also bring charges against Harris, an international communications and information technology company.
Last week, several securities industry groups filed critical responses to the SEC’s plan for an audit trail. While most groups that commented on the SEC’s proposed regulation supported implementing the proposal, several had concerns regarding the cost for investors and firms, and the protection of private data.
Last week, the SEC’s Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) released its semiannual report to Congress, which details the OIG’s independent and objective audits, evaluations, investigations and other reviews of the SEC’s programs and operations in order to prevent and detect fraud, waste and abuse in SEC programs and operations, and other vulnerabilities the SEC faces. In the most recent report, the OIG was critical of various programs, but most notably: (1) recommended a new framework to increase the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations coverage of registered investment advisors, and (2) informed Congress it was conducting a further evaluation on the SEC’s enforcement investigations to ensure that investigations are coordinated internally and across SEC divisions and offices.
Speaking last week at the SEC’s and Rock Center’s Silicon Valley Initiative at Stanford Law School, SEC Chair Mary Jo White cautioned Silicon Valley’s start-up companies regarding their potential lack of internal controls. In particular, she warned that unicorns—nonpublic start-up companies valued north of one billion dollars—may warrant special scrutiny into whether their corporate governance and investor disclosures are keeping pace with their growing valuations. Ms. White repeatedly warned that the prestige of obtaining “unicorn” status may drive companies to inflate their valuations.
After the repeated challenges to the SEC’s in-house courts as previously reported, Mark Cuban joined the debate by filing an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioners Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. and Raymond J. Lucia (collectively “Lucia”) in Lucia v. SEC. Cuban, describing himself as a “first-hand witness to and victim of SEC overreach” in a 2013 insider trading case brought against him in an SEC court, argued that the D.C. Circuit should grant the petitioners’ appeal because SEC in-house judges are unconstitutionally appointed.
On the eve of the much anticipated release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, the SEC approved Overstock Inc.’s plan to issue digital shares. The online retailer plans to issue company stock via bitcoin blockchain–an enormous database running across a global network of independent computers that tracks the exchange of money. Just as the original Star Wars movies released in the late 1970s and early 1980s signaled a monumental shift in special effects in film, Overstock’s plan to issue digital shares may herald a significant shift in the way securities are distributed and traded in the future.
On October 30, 2015, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) moved forward in implementing Title III of the JOBS Act and adopted new rules permitting companies to offer and sell securities to all potential investors through crowdfunding. Crowdfunding is the use of small amounts of capital from a large number of investors to finance new business ventures. This method of investment, typically conducted over the internet, is aimed at assisting smaller companies with capital formation by accessing a greater pool of potential investors. The SEC had previously opened crowdfunding investment to “accredited investors” (investors meeting certain net worth and/or investment experience criteria) but these rules permit non-accredited investors, i.e., everyone else, to participate while providing them with additional protection under the federal securities laws. Title III and these rules come in response to the enormous growth of equity crowdfunding through financing platforms such as GoFundMe, Kickstarter or Indiegogo.