SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING INTERNATIONAL CORP
CIK 1267482Its SEC filings (opens in a new tab)
NoneThese figures describe clients, not conduct. A lawyer or firm can serve many companies that later had trouble for reasons that have nothing to do with their work, and nothing here says any lawyer or firm did anything wrong.
- Red flags
- 0
- None on record
- Largest fall in its shares
- —
- None of 95% on record
- Law firms
- 13
- Linked to 5 or more companies
- Lawyers
- 6
- Linked to 5 or more companies
What happened
No red flag or SEC or Justice Department event on record.
An SEC release can name a company’s officer, or its stock as what a scheme sold or moved, so the company may be the victim. Each link goes to what to read.
Law firms
The ratios are about all the companies linked to each one, this one included: how many had that outcome, as a multiple of what comparable companies show. 1.00 means no more than expected.
- Davis PolkFirst linked Jun 2019 · Named in a filing · 1,696 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.25× · Went dark 0.06× · 95% wipeout 0.99×
- Fenwick & West LLPFirst linked Dec 2013 · Named in SEC correspondence · 443 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.95× · Went dark 0.21× · 95% wipeout 1.23×
- Covington & BurlingFirst linked Nov 2012 · Named in SEC correspondence · 447 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.07× · Went dark 0.27× · 95% wipeout 0.97×
- Conyers Dill & PearmanFirst linked Nov 2010 · Named in a filing · 531 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.89× · Went dark 0.35× · 95% wipeout 1.14×
- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & RosatiFirst linked Aug 2006 · Named in SEC correspondence · 1,468 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.09× · Went dark 0.60× · 95% wipeout 1.41×
- Shearman & SterlingFirst linked Feb 2004 · Named in a filing · 2,650 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.21× · Went dark 0.13× · 95% wipeout 0.84×
- DLA PiperFirst linked Nov 2017 · Text search only · 1,185 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.00× · Went dark 0.45× · 95% wipeout 1.17×
- Baker & McKenzieFirst linked Feb 2004 · Text search only · 587 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.07× · Went dark 0.72× · 95% wipeout 0.96×
- Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLPFirst linked Feb 2004 · Text search only · 258 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.92× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.80×
- Jingtian & GongchengFirst linked Feb 2004 · Text search only · 154 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.10× · Went dark 0.63× · 95% wipeout 1.14×
- Jun He Law OfficesFirst linked Feb 2004 · Text search only · 73 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.89× · Went dark 0.68× · 95% wipeout 1.17×
- Maples and CalderFirst linked Feb 2004 · Text search only · 1,145 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.95× · Went dark 0.26× · 95% wipeout 0.90×
- Ziegler Ziegler & AssociatesFirst linked Feb 2004 · Text search only · 37 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.92× · Went dark 0.62× · 95% wipeout 0.91×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davis Polk | Jun 2019 | Named in a filing | 1,696 | 1.25 | 0.06 | 0.99 |
| Fenwick & West LLP | Dec 2013 | Named in SEC correspondence | 443 | 0.95 | 0.21 | 1.23 |
| Covington & Burling | Nov 2012 | Named in SEC correspondence | 447 | 1.07 | 0.27 | 0.97 |
| Conyers Dill & Pearman | Nov 2010 | Named in a filing | 531 | 0.89 | 0.35 | 1.14 |
| Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati | Aug 2006 | Named in SEC correspondence | 1,468 | 1.09 | 0.60 | 1.41 |
| Shearman & Sterling | Feb 2004 | Named in a filing | 2,650 | 1.21 | 0.13 | 0.84 |
| DLA Piper | Nov 2017 | Text search only | 1,185 | 1.00 | 0.45 | 1.17 |
| Baker & McKenzie | Feb 2004 | Text search only | 587 | 1.07 | 0.72 | 0.96 |
| Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP | Feb 2004 | Text search only | 258 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 0.80 |
| Jingtian & Gongcheng | Feb 2004 | Text search only | 154 | 1.10 | 0.63 | 1.14 |
| Jun He Law Offices | Feb 2004 | Text search only | 73 | 0.89 | 0.68 | 1.17 |
| Maples and Calder | Feb 2004 | Text search only | 1,145 | 0.95 | 0.26 | 0.90 |
| Ziegler Ziegler & Associates | Feb 2004 | Text search only | 37 | 0.92 | 0.62 | 0.91 |
Lawyers
The ratios are about all the companies linked to each one, this one included: how many had that outcome, as a multiple of what comparable companies show. 1.00 means no more than expected.
- James C. LinDavis PolkFirst linked Jun 2019 · Named in a filing · 76 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.91× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.96×
- Eva H. WangFenwick & West LLPFirst linked Jan 2014 · Named in a filing · 6 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.83× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 2.54×
- William L. HughesFenwick & West LLPFirst linked Dec 2013 · Named in SEC correspondence · 41 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.12× · Went dark 0.94× · 95% wipeout 1.33×
- Carmen ChangWilson Sonsini Goodrich & RosatiFirst linked Feb 2004 · Named in SEC correspondence · 20 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.90× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.16×
- James B. BucherShearman & SterlingFirst linked Feb 2004 · Named in a filing · 6 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.10× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.85×
- James ChangDLA PiperFirst linked Nov 2017 · Text search only · 7 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.00× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.00×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| James C. LinDavis Polk | Jun 2019 | Named in a filing | 76 | 0.91 | 0.00 | 0.96 |
| Eva H. WangFenwick & West LLP | Jan 2014 | Named in a filing | 6 | 1.83 | 0.00 | 2.54 |
| William L. HughesFenwick & West LLP | Dec 2013 | Named in SEC correspondence | 41 | 1.12 | 0.94 | 1.33 |
| Carmen ChangWilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati | Feb 2004 | Named in SEC correspondence | 20 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 1.16 |
| James B. BucherShearman & Sterling | Feb 2004 | Named in a filing | 6 | 1.10 | 0.00 | 1.85 |
| James ChangDLA Piper | Nov 2017 | Text search only | 7 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |