January 25, 2006

Change in Executive Compensation Disclosure Webcast Date

Since the SEC’s proposing release is not yet available, we have pushed back the January 26th date of’s first proxy disclosure webcast to next Tuesday, January 31st. So now on January 31st (subject to the SEC’s release being available by then), SEC Staffer Paula Dubberly, Ron Mueller and Mark Borges will discuss both of these topics: “Your Upcoming Proxy Disclosures—What You Need to Do Now!” and “Meeting the SEC’s New Expectations: Real Life Examples (and Explanations).”

Then, the next day – Wednesday, February 1st – Paula Dubberly, Alan Dye, Amy Goodman and Beth Young will cover both the new 8-K rules and related-party transactions disclosures during an extended webcast: “Related Party Transactions: What Disclosures You Need to Make Now!”

The bottom line is that we have squeezed our three webcasts down into two (and made them both longer) – because we know many of you need practical implementation guidance as soon as possible. To catch these webcasts, try a no-risk trial (or renew your membership) to

Conducting Roadshows Online

In this podcast, Brad Hammond, President of, explains how an online roadshow works, including:

– What is
– What is its level of traffic so far?
– What do you think issuers and underwriters will be doing with their roadshows going forward? Creating two distinct versions? Keeping them offline entirely?
– What are your production practice tips for those thinking of doing an online roadshow?

Forecast for 2006 Proxy Season and Solicitation Strategies to Consider

We have posted the transcript from the popular webcast: “Forecast for 2006 Proxy Season and Solicitation Strategies to Consider.”

Attorneys Beware

From Lyle Robert’s “The 10b-5 Daily” Blog: The National Law Journal has an article on the widening exposure of law firms in securities class actions. Although the Supreme Court’s prohibition on aiding and abetting liability in private securities fraud actions has generally shielded law firms, in some cases courts have found that the law firms acted as primary violators. Plaintiffs have added fuel to that fire by arguing that even if a law firm did not make (or substantially participate in) a misrepresentation to the market, it can be held liable as a primary participant in a fraudulent scheme. (For more on scheme liability, see this post.)