CATERPILLAR INC CAT (last ticker on record)
CIK 18230Its SEC filings (opens in a new tab)
- SEC/DOJ scrutiny
- Restructuring
These 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
- 2
- Newest began Sep 2015
- Largest fall in its shares
- —
- None of 95% on record
- Law firms
- 5
- Linked to 5 or more companies
- Lawyers
- 3
- Linked to 5 or more companies
What happened
- Exit or disposal costs (Item 2.05)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- A filing mentions cooperating with the SECForm 10-Q (opens in a new tab)
- A filing mentions a grand jury subpoenaForm 10-Q (opens in a new tab)
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.
- Sidley AustinFirst linked Sep 2012 · Named in SEC correspondence · 1,210 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.30× · Went dark 0.14× · 95% wipeout 0.93×
- Mayer BrownFirst linked Jun 2006 · Named in a filing · 680 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.98× · Went dark 0.34× · 95% wipeout 0.94×
- Sullivan & CromwellFirst linked Oct 2001 · Named in a filing · 1,047 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.40× · Went dark 0.15× · 95% wipeout 0.69×
- Shearman & SterlingFirst linked Sep 2012 · Text search only · 2,649 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.21× · Went dark 0.13× · 95% wipeout 0.87×
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPFirst linked Mar 2005 · Text search only · 1,125 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.23× · Went dark 0.20× · 95% wipeout 0.96×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sidley Austin | Sep 2012 | Named in SEC correspondence | 1,210 | 1.30 | 0.14 | 0.93 |
| Mayer Brown | Jun 2006 | Named in a filing | 680 | 0.98 | 0.34 | 0.94 |
| Sullivan & Cromwell | Oct 2001 | Named in a filing | 1,047 | 1.40 | 0.15 | 0.69 |
| Shearman & Sterling | Sep 2012 | Text search only | 2,649 | 1.21 | 0.13 | 0.87 |
| Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP | Mar 2005 | Text search only | 1,125 | 1.23 | 0.20 | 0.96 |
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.
- Paul L. ChoiSidley AustinFirst linked Sep 2012 · Named in SEC correspondence · 21 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 2.16× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.00×
- Robert E. BuckholzSullivan & CromwellFirst linked Aug 2006 · Named in a filing · 39 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 2.39× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.93×
- David A. SchuetteMayer BrownFirst linked Jun 2006 · Named in a filing · 23 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.55× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.00×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paul L. ChoiSidley Austin | Sep 2012 | Named in SEC correspondence | 21 | 2.16 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Robert E. BuckholzSullivan & Cromwell | Aug 2006 | Named in a filing | 39 | 2.39 | 0.00 | 0.93 |
| David A. SchuetteMayer Brown | Jun 2006 | Named in a filing | 23 | 1.55 | 0.00 | 0.00 |