August 21, 2019

August 20, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 19, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Are Company Misstatements Of Diversity Actionable Under Rule 10b-5?

In a typical securities fraud action brought under Rule 10b-5, a private plaintiff must prove (1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation.  Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148, 157, 128 S. Ct. 761, 768, 169 L. Ed. 2d 627, 637 (2008).  Today's post will focus on the first element and company disclosures regarding board diversity. 

In January of this year, the California Secretary of State amended the disclosure statement required to be filed by all publicly traded corporations incorporated in California or registered to transact intrastate business in California.  The amended form now includes the following question: "Does the Corporation have 1 or more female Director on its current Board of Directors?"  The new question is intended to elicit information concerning the corporation's compliance with California's gender quota law.  Consistent with that law, the Secretary of State's form defines "female" as "an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth". Cal. Corp. Code § 301.3(f)(1). 

Because the definition of "female" is entirely based on an individual's self-identification, the only way that companies will know for sure about their directors' gender identities is to ask them.  Yet, when I asked the question at recent conference, no one stated that their company had included a gender identity question in their director and officer questionnaires.

It is conceivable that a director's self-identified gender will be challenged such as Senator Elizabeth Warren's self-identification of Native American ancestry.  But can a person's self-identification ever be false, and hence the subject a Rule 10b-5 action?  It seems unlikely.  If such a case is filed, it seems that the plaintiff would be required to show that that the claimed gender identification was not sincere.  See Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, 135 S. Ct. 1318 (2015).  Proving insincerity, however, would likely prove to be extremely difficult in the absence of an admission or self-incriminating statement.

© 2010-2019 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Keith Paul Bishop, Corporate Transactions Lawyer, finance securities attorney, Allen Matkins Law Firm
Partner

Keith Paul Bishop is a partner in Allen Matkins' Corporate and Securities practice group, and works out of the Orange County office. He represents clients in a wide range of corporate transactions, including public and private securities offerings of debt and equity, mergers and acquisitions, proxy contests and tender offers, corporate governance matters and federal and state securities laws (including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd-Frank Act), investment adviser, financial services regulation, and California administrative law. He regularly advises clients...

949-851-5428