Robert Bartlett interviewed by KGO-AM 810, March 15, 2013
“I think that it’s primarily going to change the way securities lawyers draft documents. It was done in an election year when jobs were at the forefront of the economy…. Oddly enough, nothing in the act actually says that to benefit from these provisions, you actually have to have employees, or you actually have to hire them.”
Robert Bartlett quoted in International Business Times, December 6, 2012
“Facebook and Twitter… are a quasi-public domain,” said Robert Bartlett, University of California, Berkeley law professor. “There are good arguments to be made on either side about social media and securities law. Social media is exactly in the gray area.”
Eric Talley and Robert Bartlett quoted in San Francisco Chronicle, May 23, 2012
“If I can demonstrate that something was false, I don’t have to also demonstrate that they should have known it was false,” said Eric Talley.
But by one reading of that rule, investment banks could share analysts’ guidance with clients before the date of the IPO, UC Berkeley assistant law professor Robert Bartlett said. Given these issues, it may turn out that Morgan Stanley and Facebook violated the spirit but not the letter of securities rules, Bartlett said.
Bloomberg Law Podcast, December 24, 2011 Host June Grasso
http://www.bloomberg.com/podcasts/law/ (Inactive link; go to News Clips for article)
“There’s this perception that the SEC should be doing a lot more work on the fraud-prevention front, and if we want to go after individuals within companies engaging in fraud, the SEC should be doing it.”
The Daily Beast, July 18, 2011 by Josh Dzieza
http://bit.ly/qSY59P
Brooks likely also signed a confidentiality agreement, says Robert Bartlett, a professor at Berkeley Law. Not only would it keep her from talking about her employment at News Corp., it would keep her from talking about the settlement agreement that keeps her from talking about her employment at News Corp.
Los Angeles Times, April 21, 2011 by Jessica Guynn
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-winklevoss-lawsuit-20110421,0,6720470.story
The Winklevosses gave up all claims—even the ones they didn’t know about—when they entered into the agreement, said UC Berkeley law professor Robert Bartlett, citing the 9th Circuit opinion. “It sounds very much like a Hail Mary,” Bartlett said.
Los Angeles Times, April 12, 2011 by Jessica Guynn and Carol Williams
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-facebook-winklevoss-20110412,0,3506898.story
“If it is the case that the idea for Facebook was truly stolen from them, then they had a claim to pursue. But they chose to settle that claim,” UC Berkeley law professor Robert Bartlett said. “As an armchair psychologist, it seems to me they are motivated by the disappointment and anger that led to their first claim. That anger, I think, had to come to an end when they decided to settle with Facebook.”
Bloomberg Television, March 28, 2011 Host Cory Johnson
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/68085928/
“On the one hand, the SEC has a mandate to protect investors. I think they want to make sure that in the frenzy that is currently happening in the secondary markets that the investors are, in fact, getting the information that they need in order to assess whether these are valuable investments or not.”
Bloomberg Radio, January 15, 2011 Host June Grasso
http://www.bloomberg.com/radio/ (Inactive link. Go to H:\Law School in the News\In the News 2011\News Clips for article)
“If the Winklevosses win, then they get none of the settlement consideration…. If they lose, they will get to keep the consideration in the settlement agreement, which based on the most recent evaluation of Facebook, would actually be worth about 150 million dollars plus, of course, the 20 million dollars in cash.”
New York Times, January 11, 2011 by Steven M. Davidoff
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/with-facebook-debate-renews-over-i-p-o-regulation/
In one study, Robert Bartlett, a Berkeley law professor, found that the overwhelming majority of companies bought by private equity firms still voluntarily complied with the provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley in order to issue debt to finance these acquisitions. In other words, investors liked the requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley, and companies willingly complied when they did not need to.