Lily Becker, an associate in Orrick's San Francisco office, is a member of the Securities Litigation Group. Ms. Becker represents individuals and corporations in connection with SEC enforcement actions and investigations, DOJ investigations, securities class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Ms. Becker's practice also includes corporate internal investigations involving FCPA, compliance and securities laws issues. She has experience in conducting global investigations for multinational corporations.
Ms. Becker also represents founders and investors in start-up companies, including matters involving venture capital disputes, unfair competition, breaches of partnership and shareholder agreements, employment and fraud claims, and fiduciary obligations.
Ms. Becker counsels and litigates in insurance areas, in particular regarding directors and officers insurance and corporate indemnification obligations.
Sample representations include:
Serving on legal counsel team on FCPA Monitorship.
The representation of numerous individuals relating to interviews in connection with SEC and DOJ investigations.
Representation of a medical device company in connection with allegations regarding the FCPA.
The representation of public company board members in connection with shareholder derivative demands and litigation.
The representation of numerous public companies in connection with shareholder class actions alleging violations of securities fraud.
Second chair of arbitration trial resulting in prevailing award in a dispute between founders of an internet start-up company.
Representation of a former general counsel of a public company in connection with stock option litigation.
Representation of a corporation in connection with a D&O policy dispute.
Before joining Orrick Ms. Becker was a clerk for the Honorable Loren A. Smith on the United States Court of Federal Claims.
In a recent decision, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery in Pyott, et al. v. Louisiana Mun. Police Emp. Ret. Sys., et al., holding that a derivative suit against Botox-maker Allergan, Inc. should be dismissed because Allergan had already secured a judgment in its favor in a nearly identical suit in California. The decision will make it more difficult for plaintiffs’ lawyers to pursue duplicative derivative litigation in multiple jurisdictions.
Shortly after Allergan entered into a $600 million settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice over alleged off-labeling marketing of Botox, separate groups of shareholders brought suit in Delaware and California. Before motions to dismiss in the Delaware derivative litigation were heard, a California Federal Court dismissed the California derivative suit, finding that plaintiffs could not support the inference that the Allergan directors conspired to violate the law, which prevented plaintiffs from showing that making a demand on the Board to investigate the matter would be futile. The Delaware Court of Chancery held that the California Judgment did not bar the Delaware action and denied Allergan’s motion to dismiss. The Court of Chancery’s decision that it was not required to give preclusive effect to the California judgment was based on two principles: first, under Delaware law, the shareholder plaintiffs in two jurisdictions were not in privity with each other, and second, the California shareholders were not adequate representatives of the corporation. Read More
In a precedent setting decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a putative class action in In re Century Aluminum Co. Securities Litigation, significantly raising the pleading bar in Section 11 cases. Plaintiffs alleged that Century Aluminum and its underwriters, Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley, issued false and misleading statements in connection with a secondary offering. The Ninth Circuit applied the Twombly/Iqbal “plausibility” standard, holding that those decisions no longer make it possible for plaintiffs to simply allege without plausible supporting facts that their shares can be “traced” back to a secondary offering. The court’s decision in Century Aluminum may mean that Ninth Circuit plaintiffs filing suit under Section 11 who rely on aftermarket purchases, and cannot otherwise plead plausible facts they purchased in the secondary offering itself, face a near impossible uphill battle at the pleading stage when alleging tracing.
Section 11 provides a remedy to shareholders who purchase securities under “a materially false or misleading registration statement.” When shares are issued under only one such registration statement, this tracing requirement is not a problem. However, when shares are issued under multiple registration statements, tracing back to the allegedly misleading registration statement can be extremely difficult. The court acknowledged that tracing to a secondary offering is “often impossible,” but noted that the tracing requirement “is the condition Congress has imposed for granting access to the ‘relaxed liability requirements’ that Section 11 affords.”
Century Aluminum issued 49 million shares in an Initial Public Offering that were already trading when plaintiffs purchased their shares. In a prospectus supplement on January 28, 2009, an additional 25 million shares entered the market. Plaintiffs alleged they had standing to pursue a Section 11 claim because they “purchased Century Aluminum Common Stock directly traceable to the Company’s Secondary Offering.” In support of their tracing theory, plaintiffs argued that their shares were purchased on dates that showed sharp spikes in trading activity, indicating the flood of new shares as a result of the allegedly misleading prospectus supplement. Read More
On November 14, 2012, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued a much anticipated Resource Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Despite the fact the Guide is 130 pages, it is a surprisingly easy read. It provides a rare glimpse into the DOJ and SEC’s interpretation of the FCPA and the guiding principles for enforcement. Although the Guide will undoubtedly provide much awaited guidance on existing issues with which companies are currently grappling, it also serves to reinforce the well held belief that the DOJ and SEC are taking a hard line view on the FCPA.
The Guide provides insights into the government’s view on various aspects of the FCPA and covers issues surrounding both the Anti-Bribery Provisions as well as Books and Records and Internal Controls Provisions. Below are just a few key highlights.
The Guide lays out explanations of the key provisions of the FCPA, and offers hypothetical examples that highlight the DOJ and SEC’s interpretation of those key provisions. For example, in a lengthy discussion regarding what “anything of value” means, the guide discusses the various forms that an improper benefit can take–from travel expenses to payments of cash through “consulting fees” or “commissions” to expensive gifts. Examples of proper gifts is also discussed: “Some hallmarks of appropriate gift-giving are when the gift is given openly and transparently, properly recorded in the giver’s books and records, provided only to reflect esteem or gratitude, and permitted under local law. Items of nominal value, such as cab fare, reasonable meals and entertainment expenses, or company promotional items, are unlikely to improperly influence an official, and, as a result, are not, without more, items that have resulted in enforcement action by DOJ or SEC.” Read More
The plaintiffs’ bar has taken new aim at public companies’ annual meetings: filing lawsuits to enjoin annual shareholder approval of stock plan proposals and “Say-On-Pay” (“SOP”) votes, typically arguing that the proxy disclosures regarding these topics are inadequate. Dozens of cases have been filed this year to date. The Santa Clara Superior Court recently denied plaintiff’s attempt to delay Symantec’s SOP vote, finding no precedent for such an injunction. Yet new cases continue to come.
In Symantec, plaintiffs argued that proxy disclosures failed to provide enough information to allow shareholders to make an informed decision regarding executive compensation proposals. Plaintiffs argued that shareholders needed more detailed information, including an analysis conducted by the company’s compensation consultants and any compensation risk assessment undertaken by the company. Symantec v. Gordon, et al., Case No. 1-12-CV-231541 (Cal. Santa Clara County Superior Court). The Symantec Court disagreed.
The Symantec case suggests that judges will look to industry practices in evaluating the adequacy of disclosures on executive compensation. The court considered an expert opinion from a Stanford Professor (Robert Daines) surveying disclosures made by other companies in the industry. Professor Daines concluded that Symantec’s disclosures were at least as detailed as the industry standard. Lacking any factual support or legal precedent for such an injunction, the court denied the motion. Read More
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has revived a federal securities class action against Grant Thornton LLP regarding its unqualified 1999 audit opinion indicating that Winstar Communications Inc.’s 1999 financial statements was in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The Second Circuit’s opinion is notable because it finds that, despite an apparently thorough audit (in terms of hours spent and documents reviewed) a fact finder could still find enough evidence of a conscious disregard of signs of fraud to support an inference of recklessness. In other words, even where an auditor does a significant amount of work on an audit, such work will not necessarily immunize the auditor from securities claims. Read More
Please do not include any confidential, secret or otherwise sensitive information concerning any potential
or actual legal matter in this e-mail message. Unsolicited e-mails do not create an attorney-client
relationship and confidential or secret information included in such e-mails cannot be protected from
disclosure. Orrick does not have a duty or a legal obligation to keep confidential any information that
you provide to us. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction
in which they are not properly authorized to do so.
By clicking "OK" below, you understand and agree that Orrick will have no duty to keep confidential any
information you provide.