Featured Stories
USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Electronic Devices With Certain Audio Technologies
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Electronic Devices with Certain Audio Technologies
September 16, 2026
The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain electronic devices with certain audio technologies. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the USITC's notice of investigation.
The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of BoomCloud 360 Inc. of Encinitas, California, on August 14, 2026.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Electronic Devices with Certain Audio Technologies
September 16, 2026
The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain electronic devices with certain audio technologies. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the USITC's notice of investigation.
The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of BoomCloud 360 Inc. of Encinitas, California, on August 14, 2026.A supplement was filed on August 31, 2026. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain electronic devices with certain audio technologies that infringe certain claims of the patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The USITC has identified the following respondents in this investigation:
* Apple, Inc, Cupertino, California
* Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Suwon-si, South Korea
* Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
* Google LLC, Mountain View, California
By instituting this investigation (337-TA-1521), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC's administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the USITC.
The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2026/er0916_69235.htm
SEC Commissioner Uyeda Issues Remarks on the Proposed Rescission of Rule 14a-8 and Proposed Proxy Solicitation Modernization
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks by Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda:
* * *
Statement on the Proposed Rescission of Rule 14a-8 and Proposed Proxy Solicitation Modernization
Sept. 16, 2026
Today, the Commission proposes to rescind Rule 14a-8, which leaves determination about whether a shareholder proposal may be properly placed on a proxy statement to the states, companies, and shareholders. The Commission also proposes to amend Rule 14a-4 to expand the circumstances under which a company may exercise discretionary voting authority on certain
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks by Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda:
* * *
Statement on the Proposed Rescission of Rule 14a-8 and Proposed Proxy Solicitation Modernization
Sept. 16, 2026
Today, the Commission proposes to rescind Rule 14a-8, which leaves determination about whether a shareholder proposal may be properly placed on a proxy statement to the states, companies, and shareholders. The Commission also proposes to amend Rule 14a-4 to expand the circumstances under which a company may exercise discretionary voting authority on certainproposals./1 Lastly, the Commission proposes amendments that would modernize certain rules related to proxy solicitations./2
In framing today's proposals, the federal securities laws authorize the Commission to regulate the dissemination of financial and business information by public companies, including disclosure for proxy solicitations in connection with shareholder meetings. Absent limited exceptions mandated by Congress,/3 the federal securities laws do not provide broad authority for the Commission to regulate the corporate governance and internal affairs of a corporation, which have long been the domain of the states.
Instead, the Commission's primary mission is to ensure that investors are provided material information when making investment and voting decisions. Oversight of corporate governance is left to state law, which generally provides flexibility for corporations and their boards of directors to select specific provisions through their charters and bylaws. Indeed, the courts have also ruled against "back door" attempts by the Commission to regulate corporate governance indirectly through exchange listing standards./4 Despite many opportunities to do so over the years, congressional efforts to federalize corporate law have never come to fruition./5
Thus, despite over eight decades of existence, to the extent that Rule 14a-8 created a federal right to place a proposal before a shareholder meeting, I find the legal authority for the Commission to mandate such act was lacking. Moreover, in more recent years, Rule 14a-8 has often served as a tool of special interests to advance political agendas unrelated to the business of a specific company.
As today's proposing release notes, the number of shareholder proposals in recent years has continuously increased, while often garnering only minimal voting support. Rule 14a-8 was not intended "to burden the proxy solicitation process by requiring the inclusion" of proposals submitted by a few proponents that are "unrelated to the general interests of shareholders as shareholders."6
Recent trends are troubling: Rule 14a-8 has been co-opted to advance the agendas of various political interests--acting without any fiduciary duty to a corporation or its shareholders--at the expense of the millions of investors that directly and indirectly own public companies. These political interests use Rule 14a-8 as leverage in order to achieve objectives that often are not materially relevant to a public company. Often, the mere threat of submitting a shareholder proposal under Rule 14a-8 is enough for a public company to negotiate certain concessions to the would be proponent in order to avoid a shareholder proposal.
One recent study conducted by the SEC notes that the number one reason for an investor to buy an investment is: "future growth of the investment [being] strong."7 Unfortunately, it is these investors who ultimately pay for the costs associated with these frequent niche topics submitted under Rule 14a-8 as shareholder proposals. Management and boards spend significant amounts of time and energy responding to shareholder proposals, which creates a tremendous opportunity cost that can be detrimental to the company as a whole.
Today's proposal would return the question of what matters may be properly brought before a shareholder meeting to the states, companies, and boards of directors to determine whether a proposal should be included in the proxy statement. In a post-Rule 14a-8 landscape, where the existing substantive bases for exclusions are removed, one possible outcome is that the scope of permissible proposals could be significantly broadened if neither state law nor company bylaws place any restriction on matters that may be submitted for a shareholder vote. That, however, is a matter for others, not the Commission, to decide. Shareholders, or potential shareholders, have a lot of influence when it comes to corporate governance; if shareholders refrain from investing in companies with sub-optimal corporate governance arrangements, then those companies will suffer from having a higher cost of capital.
The Commission also is proposing to amend Rule 14a-4 to expand the circumstances under which a company may exercise, with respect to proxies it receives, discretionary voting authority on proposals that will be presented at a shareholder meeting but not included in the company's proxy materials. In tandem with this proposed amendment, Rule 14a-4 as proposed would provide shareholders with the means to prevent the company from exercising such authority with respect to their individual shares. These changes would provide companies with increased flexibility, and shareholders with greater control, with respect to shareholder proposals for which a company may seek discretionary voting authority.
In addition to the proposed Rule 14a-8 rescission and the Rule 14a-4 amendments, the Commission also proposes changes aimed at modernizing our proxy solicitation rules to ensure that shareholders receive timely, accurate information through channels that reflect how investors communicate and access data today, rather than relying on frameworks built for a paper-based era. Eliminating duplicative or outdated requirements reduces unnecessary compliance costs for issuers and intermediaries. The Commission should be regularly revisiting its own rulebook to assess whether its regulatory framework keeps pace with evolving markets, technology, and investor needs rather than growing stale.
Today's proposals represent a comprehensive effort at refocusing and modernizing our rulebook as it relates to shareholder voting, and I look forward to hearing the views of market participants.
I thank the staff of the Divisions of Corporation Finance, Investment Management, and Economic and Risk Analysis as well as the Offices of the General Counsel and the Chief Accountant for their work on these proposals.
* * *
1/ Rescission of Rule 14a-8's Federal Regulation of Shareholder Proposals and Amendments to Rule 14a-4, Release No. 34-106383, available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2026/34-106383.pdf.
2/ Proxy Solicitation Modernization, Release No. 33-11439, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2026/33-11439.pdf.
3/ See, e.g., Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
4/ See, e.g., Business Roundtable v. SEC, 905 F.2d 406 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
5/ Supra n. 1 at 52, see also Louis Loss, Joel Seligman, and Troy Paredes, Securities Regulation 1.C (6th Edition 2018).
6/ See Proposed Amendments to Rule 14a-8 Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Relating to Proposals by Security Holders, Release No. 34-19135 (Oct. 14, 1982) [47 FR 47420, note 8 (Oct. 26, 1982)].
7/ See generally U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, Off. of the Inv. Advoc., Perspectives on Investing in the U.S.: Insights from THRIVE July 2024 at 8, (April 2025).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/uyeda-statement-proposed-rescission-rule-14a-8-proposed-proxy-solicitation-modernization-091626
SEC Commissioner Peirce Issues Remarks on the Proposals to Rescind Rule 14a-8 and Modernize Proxy Solicitation Rules
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce:
* * *
A Proposal on Proposals: Remarks on the Proposals to Rescind Rule 14a-8 and Modernize Proxy Solicitation Rules
Sept. 16, 2026
I am pleased to support today's proposals to rescind Rule 14a-8 under the Securities Exchange Act and modernize the proxy solicitation rules. Thank you to the Division of Corporation Finance, the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, and the Office of General Counsel for your work on these rulemakings.
In past remarks, I compared companies
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce:
* * *
A Proposal on Proposals: Remarks on the Proposals to Rescind Rule 14a-8 and Modernize Proxy Solicitation Rules
Sept. 16, 2026
I am pleased to support today's proposals to rescind Rule 14a-8 under the Securities Exchange Act and modernize the proxy solicitation rules. Thank you to the Division of Corporation Finance, the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, and the Office of General Counsel for your work on these rulemakings.
In past remarks, I compared companiesnavigating our complicated and at times treacherous regulatory landscape, one in which regulations are often complicit in dragging companies into contentious social and political debates, to the bighorn sheep that leap precariously from crag to crag in the Sierra Nevada mountains./1 Under Chairman Atkins's leadership, the Commission has focused on simplifying that rocky regulatory landscape so companies can maximize long-term returns for their shareholders by producing products and services that people value. Today's proposal to rescind Exchange Act Rule 14a-8 contributes to that effort, while also helping to preserve Commission resources for rulewriting and disclosure review.
For years, Rule 14a-8 has operated as a mechanism to allow certain shareholder proponents to propose matters for inclusion in a company's proxy materials. These matters, although typically advisory in nature, became a costly distraction for boards and management because they often related to concerns immaterial to the company. The process has become a lever for shareholders motivated by niche concerns with little demonstrated stake in a company to commandeer its time and attention: "Hey, company," says the would-be proponent, "I would graciously concede to keep quiet if you agree to spend company resources on a project of personal interest to me. Otherwise buckle up for a very public and contentious vote-yes campaign." Companies often take the deal to avoid the greater nuisance a proposal would produce, but non-proponent shareholders pay the price.
Disrupting this mechanism by which small shareholders gain disproportionate leverage over companies would mark a fresh start. The transition period may be bumpy, but shareholders and companies will work to strike the right balance in state laboratories of experimentation./2 The states will determine what issues ultimately get put up for a vote by setting the gating parameters. The process should produce a framework that sets clear expectations for all parties, with disputes mediated by the appropriate and most knowledgeable authorities. States likely will preserve a mechanism for shareholders with a demonstrated commitment to the long-term value of the company to raise issues for their fellow shareholders' consideration.
This area is one that sparks lively debate, so I look forward to reading the comment file on the proposal. Among other issues on which feedback would be valuable are the following questions:
1. Some commenters may be concerned that rescinding Rule 14a-8 would eliminate a cheap and easy vehicle for putting issues before company management. Is facilitating communication between shareholders and management a proper function of the SEC staff, or would such a policy concern be better and more appropriately handled by the states?
2. Rescinding Rule 14a-8 may increase companies' uncertainty in the short term about when to include proposals. Would empowering "outside practitioners to make the hard calls without the [SEC] Staff as [their] crutch" result in more consistent exclusion decisions over time?/3
3. I also look forward to comments on the proposal to simplify other aspects of the proxy solicitation process. Do the proposed changes reduce company costs and burdens while protecting investors?
* * *
1/ Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, Sheep in the Steep: Remarks before the Northwestern Securities Regulation Institute (Jan. 27, 2025), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-remarks-northwestern-securities-regulation-institute-012725.
2/ See New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) ("a single, courageous State may . . . serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.").
3/ David Lynn, The Rule 14a-8 New World Order: My Shareholder Proposal Odyssey, TheCorporateCounsel.net Blog (Aug. 26, 2026), available at https://www.thecorporatecounsel.net/blog/2026/08/the-rule-14a-8-new-world-order-my-shareholder-proposal-odyssey.html.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-remarks-proposals-rescind-rule-14a-8-modernize-proxy-solicitation-rules-091626
SEC Chairman Atkins Issues Statement on Proposals to Rescind Rule 14a-8, Amend Rule 14a-4, and Modernize Proxy Solicitation
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks by Chairman Paul S. Atkins:
* * *
Statement on Proposals to Rescind Rule 14a-8, Amend Rule 14a-4, and Modernize Proxy Solicitation
Sept. 16, 2026
Today, the Commission issued two proposing releases related to its proxy rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The proposals reflect two of my highest regulatory priorities. First, ensuring that the Commission does not improperly intrude into state corporate law when applying the federal securities laws. Second, updating the Commission's rules to
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks by Chairman Paul S. Atkins:
* * *
Statement on Proposals to Rescind Rule 14a-8, Amend Rule 14a-4, and Modernize Proxy Solicitation
Sept. 16, 2026
Today, the Commission issued two proposing releases related to its proxy rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The proposals reflect two of my highest regulatory priorities. First, ensuring that the Commission does not improperly intrude into state corporate law when applying the federal securities laws. Second, updating the Commission's rules toreflect developments in market practice and technology, and other innovations, since the rules' adoption or last amendment.
To begin, the Commission proposed to rescind Rule 14a-8. The proposal reflects the notion that none of the Commission's rules--no matter how entrenched within the agency--are immune from retrospective review. We are duty bound to question whether a rule is a proper exercise of the Commission's statutory authority and whether it continues to reflect sound policy. As the proposing release explains, Rule 14a-8 fails this review in both respects and thus should be rescinded.
The proposed rescission of Rule 14a-8 would, if adopted, eliminate the federal rule regulating inclusion of shareholder proposals in a company's proxy materials for vote by the company's shareholders. To be clear, the proposed rescission would not eliminate the concept of shareholder proposals and is not an attempt by the Commission to silence shareholders. Rather, it is a recognition that the Commission must act within its authority. Absent authorization from Congress--which it has not granted for shareholder proposals--the Commission has no authority to determine which matters are a proper subject for a shareholder vote. This issue of corporate governance must be resolved by the state in which a company domiciles. Companies and their shareholders should look to the state's legislature--and if permitted by the state, the company's governing documents--for the framework governing shareholder proposals, and resolve disputes in the state's courts or other permitted forums.
Rescission of Rule 14a-8 would help ensure that states are able to fully exercise their longstanding authority over shareholder proposals. Even if the Commission had authority to maintain Rule 14a-8, further refining the rule--such as changing ownership thresholds to submit a proposal or clarifying what constitutes ordinary business to exclude a proposal--would continue to ensnare the Commission in making judgments about matters that should be governed by state law. Such sustained entanglement through an overlay of federal law has resulted, and likely would continue to result, in Rule 14a-8 effectively supplanting, and hindering the development of, state law with respect to shareholder proposals.
As we experience an exciting period of increased competition among states for corporate domicile, there is no better time for the Commission to recognize the limits of its authority, relative to state law, for regulating shareholder proposals. Competition has always been the engine for innovation and progress in America. As part of states' efforts to attract companies, the proposed rescission of Rule 14a-8 should, if adopted, provide states with both the legal clarity and the motivation to implement their own ideas for a sensible shareholder proposal framework.
***
As part of the same release proposing to rescind Rule 14a-8, the Commission also proposed amendments to Rule 14a-4. If adopted, these amendments would provide companies with discretionary proxy authority to vote on matters presented at shareholder meetings but not included on the company's proxy card, while simultaneously providing shareholders with the means not to confer that authority. Currently, companies have this discretionary authority with respect to timely received proposals only if the shareholder proponent for the matter does not solicit a requisite percentage of shares. Other shareholders cannot opt out of companies using such authority, if available. The amendments, therefore, would provide companies with more flexibility and shareholders with more agency.
The proposed amendments to Rule 14a-4 are independent of the proposed rescission of Rule 14a-8. However, it is possible that if the Commission ultimately rescinds Rule 14a-8, shareholders may be more likely to file their own proxy materials to solicit votes for their proposals. Considering this possibility, the Commission proposed amendments to Rule 14a-4 to recalibrate the use of discretionary proxy authority in a new environment for shareholder proposals.
***
Finally, in a separate release, the Commission proposed amendments to four of its proxy solicitation rules that, if adopted, would modernize the rules to reflect technological advancements and changes in shareholder communications.
* Annual Report to Security Holders. The Commission proposed to eliminate the requirement in Rule 14a-3 that a company must deliver a separate "annual report to security holders" even if it has already filed a Form 10-K. Today, shareholders receive essentially the same information from both the annual report required by Rule 14a-3 and the Form 10-K. Accordingly, the proposal would, if adopted, reduce costs to companies arising from preparing and delivering an annual report, without sacrificing investor protection and access to timely information.
* Incorporation by Reference Waiting Period. The Commission proposed to eliminate the requirement in Schedule 14A and Forms S-4 and F-4 to send a proxy statement or prospectus to shareholders at least 20 business days prior to the date of a shareholder meeting if the document incorporates information by reference. This 20-business-day requirement predates companies filing on EDGAR Schedule 14A, Forms S-4 and F-4, and incorporated documents. Today, this requirement no longer serves any investor protection considerations because shareholders can quickly and efficiently access those documents on EDGAR. The proposal would, if adopted, provide companies with greater flexibility in planning their shareholder meetings or business combination transactions, without sacrificing investor protection and access to timely information.
* Notice of Exempt Solicitation. The Commission proposed to eliminate the requirement in Rule 14a-6(g) for a shareholder owning more than $5 million of a company's securities to submit on EDGAR a notice for its exempt solicitation with respect to that company. The notices no longer serve their intended purpose and, in recent years, the substantial majority of these notices have instead been submitted voluntarily by shareholders owning less than the requisite amount. The proposal would, if adopted, eliminate an unnecessary filing requirement and help ensure that EDGAR cannot be misappropriated to become a platform that prominently communicates views not required to be publicly disseminated, as such outcome may confuse shareholders and hinder their access to a company's required filings.
* Broker Search Period. The Commission proposed to reduce Rule 14a-13's timeframe for initiating a broker search in connection with a shareholder meeting from 20 business days before the record date to five business days. The current timeframe, which the Commission adopted in 1983, has become outdated with technological advancements. The proposal would, if adopted, provide companies with greater flexibility in planning their shareholder meetings, while continuing to ensure that companies accurately identify their beneficial owners for a shareholder meeting.
Today's proposals demonstrate my focus on ensuring that the Commission's rules are within the agency's statutory authority and reflect policy positions grounded in current and anticipated market practice and modern technologies. I look forward to receiving and reviewing the public's feedback on both proposals.
***
Thank you to the following members of the Commission staff for their very dedicated and thorough work on the proposal to rescind Rule 14a-8 and amend Rule 14a-4.
Division of Corporation Finance: Jim Moloney, Sebastian Gomez Abero, Christina Thomas, Michael Seaman, Ted Yu, Tiffany Posil, Jenny Choi, Matt McNair, Madeleine Mateo, David Plattner, Blake Grady, Benjamin Holt, Valian Afshar, Nabeel Cheema, Jessica Ansart, Dillon Hagius, and Doris Gama.
Office of the General Counsel: J. Russell McGranahan, Jeffrey Johnson, Tracey Hardin, Theodore Weiman, Ezekiel Hill, Bryant Morris, Dorothy McCuaig, Eduardo Aleman, Bob Bagnall, David Russo, and Rebecca Orban.
Division of Economic and Risk Analysis: Joshua White, Oliver Richard, Amy Edwards, Stuart Gillan, Lyndon Orton, Albert Sheen, Vlad Ivanov, Mattias Nilsson, Angela Huang, Ruoke Yang, Aiyesha Dey, Lauren Moore, Timothy Dodd, Michael Pessin, Evan Avita, Don Edmond and Samantha Croffie.
Division of Investment Management: Brian Daly, Sarah ten Siethoff, Brian M. Johnson, Angela Mokodean, Rachel Loko, Michael Kosoff, and Yoon Choo.
***
Thank you also to the following members of the Commission staff for their keen technical expertise and tremendous work on the proposal to modernize the four proxy solicitation rules.
Division of Corporation Finance: Jim Moloney, Sebastian Gomez Abero, Christina Thomas, Ted Yu, Tiffany Posil, David Plattner, Blake Grady, Benjamin Holt, Valian Afshar, Mark Green, Jessica Ansart, Dillon Hagius, and Doris Gama.
Office of the General Counsel: J. Russell McGranahan, Bryant Morris, Dorothy McCuaig, Eduardo Aleman, Mike Killoy, and Rebecca Orban.
Division of Economic and Risk Analysis: Joshua White, Oliver Richard, Amy Edwards, Parisa Mofakham, Vladimir Ivanov, Lauren Moore, Samantha Croffie, Stephen Hagenbuch, Wei Lu, and Joseph Luckett.
Division of Investment Management: Brian Daly, Sarah ten Siethoff, Christian Sandoe, Brian M. Johnson, Michael Kosoff, Bradley Gude, and Pamela Ellis.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-statement-proposals-rescind-rule-14a-8-amend-rule-14a-4-modernize-proxy-solicitation-091626
SEC Agrees to Settle Litigation With Co-Founders of San Franciso Biotech Company
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jessica Richman and Zachary Apte, No. 3:21-cv-01911-CRB (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 18, 2021)
On September 14, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed consents and proposed final judgments as to Jessica Richman and Zachary Apte, co-founders of uBiome, Inc., a San Francisco-based private medical testing company that ceased operations in 2019.
The SEC's complaint, filed on March 18, 2021, alleges that Richman, uBiome's CEO, and Apte, its
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jessica Richman and Zachary Apte, No. 3:21-cv-01911-CRB (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 18, 2021)
On September 14, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed consents and proposed final judgments as to Jessica Richman and Zachary Apte, co-founders of uBiome, Inc., a San Francisco-based private medical testing company that ceased operations in 2019.
The SEC's complaint, filed on March 18, 2021, alleges that Richman, uBiome's CEO, and Apte, itsChief Scientific Officer, raised funds from investors by portraying the company as achieving rapid growth based on its strong track record of receiving health insurance reimbursements for its tests. The complaint further alleges that this claim was false and misleading because uBiome's purported success depended on duping doctors into ordering unnecessary tests and other improper practices directed by Richman and Apte, which, once discovered, led insurers to claw back their previous reimbursement payments to uBiome.
Without admitting the allegations in the SEC's complaint, Richman and Apte consented to the entry of final judgments, subject to court approval, permanently enjoining them from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; imposing three-year officer-and-director bars; prohibiting them for three years from participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any security (except for purchases or sales for their own personal accounts); and ordering each of them to pay a $125,000 penalty.
The SEC's litigation was conducted by Thomas Eme and David Zhou and supervised by Jason M. Bussey and Jason H. Lee of the SEC's San Francisco Regional Office.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26641.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26641
FMC Dismisses Samsung Complaint Following Approved Settlement
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 -- The Federal Maritime Commission issued an Initial Decision Dismissing Complaint with Approved Settlement Agreement (Docket No. 26-06).
Administrative Law Judge Linda S. Harris Crovella granted a motion by Samsung Electronics America, Inc. to dismiss its verified complaint against Wan Hai Lines, Ltd. with prejudice.
The action follows confirmation from Samsung Electronics America Inc. that Wan Hai Lines Ltd. paid the agreed settlement amounts after the substantive terms of the settlement agreement received approval in August 2026.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
*
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 -- The Federal Maritime Commission issued an Initial Decision Dismissing Complaint with Approved Settlement Agreement (Docket No. 26-06).
Administrative Law Judge Linda S. Harris Crovella granted a motion by Samsung Electronics America, Inc. to dismiss its verified complaint against Wan Hai Lines, Ltd. with prejudice.
The action follows confirmation from Samsung Electronics America Inc. that Wan Hai Lines Ltd. paid the agreed settlement amounts after the substantive terms of the settlement agreement received approval in August 2026.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
** *
Samsung Electronics America Inc. is based in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey.
Wan Hai Lines Ltd. is based in Taipei, Taiwan.
* * *
URL: Samsung Electronics America Inc.
URL: Wan Hai Lines Ltd.
* * *
Original text here: https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/docs/26-06/(18)%2026-06%20Initial%20Decision%20Dismissing%20Complaint%20with%20Approved%20Settlement%20Agreement.pdf/
FCC Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau Issues Public Notice: Announcement of Nationwide Test of Emergency Alert System on Nov. 17
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (PS Docket Nos. 15-91, 15-94):
* * *
Today, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) provides notice to all Emergency Alert System (EAS) Participants/1 and the public that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in coordination with the FCC, will conduct a nationwide test of the EAS on November 17, 2026./2 If conditions on that date require the rescheduling of the test, it
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (PS Docket Nos. 15-91, 15-94):
* * *
Today, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) provides notice to all Emergency Alert System (EAS) Participants/1 and the public that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in coordination with the FCC, will conduct a nationwide test of the EAS on November 17, 2026./2 If conditions on that date require the rescheduling of the test, itwill be conducted on December 3, 2026./3
I. Nationwide EAS Test
FEMA will transmit the nationwide test of the EAS at 2:20 p.m. Eastern Time (ET), on November 17, 2026, using the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS). The test will be disseminated in English and Spanish as a Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) message using the Nationwide Test of the Emergency Alert System (NPT) event code. The test message audio and text, which is designed to be identical to the greatest extent possible, is as follows: "This is a nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, covering the United States from 2:20 to 2:50 hours ET. This is only a test. No action is required by the public."/4
The Bureau encourages EAS Participants to take steps, in coordination with their State Emergency Communications Committees, in preparation for this test, such as:
* Ensuring that a copy of the EAS Operating Handbook is located at normal duty positions, or EAS equipment locations, and is otherwise immediately available to operators;/5
* Reviewing the EAS Operating Handbook for the actions to be taken by operators upon receipt of the test alert, and tailoring any actions as necessary that are specific to the EAS Participants' facilities;
* Reviewing their State EAS Plan for monitoring assignments and ensuring that EAS equipment is accurately configured to monitor those sources;/6
* Updating EAS equipment software and firmware to the most recent version;/7 and
* Manually synchronizing EAS equipment clocks to the official time provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology/8 if an EAS Participant's equipment does not automatically synchronize to an Internet time source.
Members of the public and interested stakeholder organizations that are in a position to observe test results in their communities can provide useful feedback on the nationwide test, including any problems observed or any complications in the delivery of the EAS message during the nationwide test by reporting their observations to the Public Safety Support Center at https://www.fcc.gov/general/publicsafety-support-center.
A. EAS Test Reporting System Filing Deadlines
All EAS Participants are required to participate in the nationwide EAS test and make required filings in the Commission's EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS)./9
* All EAS Participants must submit their annual ETRS Form One for calendar year 2026 no later than October 30, 2026./10
* All EAS Participants must file ETRS Form Two within 48 hours of the nationwide test. The deadline for Form Two filings is 2:20 pm ET on November 19, 2026, or, if the test is conducted on the alternative date, 2:20 pm ET on December 5, 2026./11
* All EAS Participants must file ETRS Form Three to provide detailed post-test data within 45 days following the nationwide test, which will be on or before January 4, 2027, or, if the test is conducted on the alternative date, on or before January 18, 2027./12
ETRS Forms Two and Three will become available in ETRS on November 17, 2026, at the time of initiation of the 2026 nationwide test.
B. Who Must File
All EAS Participants--including Low Power FM stations (LPFM), Class D non-commercial educational FM stations, and EAS Participants that are silent pursuant to a grant of Special Temporary Authority--are required to register and file in ETRS, with the following exceptions:
* Analog and digital low power television (LPTV) stations that operate as television broadcast translator stations that entirely rebroadcast the programming of other broadcast televisions stations are not required to register and file in ETRS./13
* FM broadcast booster stations and FM translator stations which entirely rebroadcast the programming of other local FM broadcast stations are not required to register and file in ETRS./14
* International broadcast stations are not required to register and file in ETRS./15
* Analog and digital broadcast stations that operate as satellites or repeaters of a hub station (or common studio or control point if there is no hub station) and rebroadcast 100 percent of the programming of the hub station (or common studio or control point) are not required to register and file in ETRS. However, the hub station (or common studio or control point) is required to register and file in ETRS./16
C. Accessing ETRS
Filers can access ETRS by visiting the ETRS page of the Commission's website at https://www.fcc.gov/general/eas-test-reporting-system./17 Filers must use their registered FCC Username (Username) that is associated with the FCC Registration Numbers (FRNs) for which they will file. Filers that have already created a Username for use with another FCC system may access the ETRS with that Username. Filers that do not remember the password that corresponds with their Username may reset it at https://apps2.fcc.gov/fccUserReg/pages/reset-passwd-identify.htm. Filers that have not previously created a Username may do so by visiting the User Registration System at https://apps2.fcc.gov/fccUserReg/pages/createAccount.htm. Filers can associate their Username to an FRN by logging in at https://apps.fcc.gov/cores/userLogin.do and clicking on the appropriate option. Additional information regarding creating and associating FRNs with a Username can be found on the CORES FAQs page at https://apps.fcc.gov/cores/publicHome.do?faq=true.
II. FURTHER INFORMATION
Filers may contact Bureau staff for assistance with ETRS filings via ETRS@fcc.gov.
For further information regarding the nationwide EAS test, contact George Donato, Associate Division Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-0729 or george.donato@fcc.gov.
Filers may contact FCC Licensing Support for assistance with creating a Username or other CORES troubleshooting via the web at https://www.fcc.gov/wtbhelp, or by telephone at 1-877-480-3201. The support hours of operation are 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays).
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ EAS Participants are those entities that are required to comply with the Commission's EAS rules, including analog radio and television stations, wired and wireless cable television systems, digital broadcast systems, digital television broadcast stations, Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service, digital cable and digital audio broadcasting systems, and wireline video systems. 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 11.2(b), 11.11(a).
2/ This Public Notice satisfies the requirement that the Commission provide notice to EAS Participants at least two months prior to the conduct of a national test. See 47 CFR Sec. 11.61(a)(3)(iii).
3/ See Letter from Jonathon P. Myers, Associate Administrator, Office of National Continuity Programs, Department of Homeland Security - FEMA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Sept. 16, 2026) (on file in PS Docket No. 15-94).
4/ Id. at 1.
5/ See 47 CFR Sec. 11.15. A writeable PDF version of the EAS Operating Handbook can be found on the Bureau's web site at https://www.fcc.gov/general/eas-test-reporting-system.
6/ See 47 CFR Sec. 11.52(d)(1) (with respect to EAS messages that are formatted in accordance with the EAS Protocol, EAS Participants must monitor two EAS sources).
7/ An EAS Participant's failure to receive or transmit an EAS message during a national test or actual emergency because of an equipment failure may subject the EAS Participant to enforcement action. Enforcement Bureau Reminds Emergency Alert System (EAS) Participants of Compliance Obligations, FCC Enforcement Advisory, 36 FCC Rcd 44, 45 (EB 2021) (EAS Enforcement Advisory).
8/ National Institute of Standards and Technology, The Official NIST US Time, http://www.time.gov.
9/ See 47 CFR Sec. 11.61(a)(3)(i); EAS Enforcement Advisory, 36 FCC Rcd at 45.
10/ Pursuant to Section 11.61 of the Commission's rules, EAS Participants must renew their identifying information required by the ETRS Form One on a yearly basis. See 47 CFR Sec. 11.61(a)(3)(iv)(A).
11/ The Commission's rules states that the "'Day of test' data shall be filed in the ETRS within 24 hours of any nationwide test or as otherwise required by the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau." 47 CFR Sec. 11.61(a)(3)(iv)(B). To ensure that all EAS Participants have sufficient time to file the required "Day of test" information, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau is requiring "Day of test" data to be filed within 48 hours of the test, rather than the standard 24 hours allotted by the rule.
12/ 47 CFR Sec. 11.61(a)(3)(iv)(C); 47 CFR Sec. 1.4(j).
13/ See 47 CFR Sec. 11.11(b).
14/ See id.
15/ See id. (citing 47 CFR Sec. 73.701's definition of "international broadcast stations").
16/ See id.
17/ Instructional videos, a user manual and answers to frequently asked questions regarding registration and completion of ETRS filings are also available on the ETRS website.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-989A1.pdf
