SPECTRANETICS CORP SPNC (last ticker on record)
CIK 789132Its SEC filings (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (not a red flag)
- 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
- 1
- Newest began Aug 2017
- Largest fall in its shares
- —
- None of 95% on record
- Law firms
- 5
- Linked to 5 or more companies
- Lawyers
- 5
- Linked to 5 or more companies
What happened
- Debt accelerated (Item 2.04)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (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.
- Sullivan & CromwellFirst linked Aug 2017 · Named in a filing · 1,047 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.40× · Went dark 0.15× · 95% wipeout 0.69×
- Cravath Swaine & MooreFirst linked Jul 2016 · Named in SEC correspondence · 839 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.29× · Went dark 0.03× · 95% wipeout 0.85×
- Faegre Baker DanielsFirst linked Sep 2012 · Named in SEC correspondence · 145 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.06× · Went dark 0.34× · 95% wipeout 1.16×
- Latham & Watkins LLPFirst linked Jun 1996 · Named in SEC correspondence · 2,667 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.98× · Went dark 0.31× · 95% wipeout 1.10×
- Baker & DanielsFirst linked Mar 2013 · Text search only · 129 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.11× · Went dark 0.45× · 95% wipeout 1.22×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sullivan & Cromwell | Aug 2017 | Named in a filing | 1,047 | 1.40 | 0.15 | 0.69 |
| Cravath Swaine & Moore | Jul 2016 | Named in SEC correspondence | 839 | 1.29 | 0.03 | 0.85 |
| Faegre Baker Daniels | Sep 2012 | Named in SEC correspondence | 145 | 1.06 | 0.34 | 1.16 |
| Latham & Watkins LLP | Jun 1996 | Named in SEC correspondence | 2,667 | 0.98 | 0.31 | 1.10 |
| Baker & Daniels | Mar 2013 | Text search only | 129 | 1.11 | 0.45 | 1.22 |
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.
- Matthew G. HurdSullivan & CromwellFirst linked Aug 2017 · Named in a filing · 19 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.53× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.00×
- Douglas R. WrightFaegre & BensonFirst linked Sep 2012 · Named in SEC correspondence · 23 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.75× · Went dark 1.55× · 95% wipeout 1.30×
- Jeffrey A. ShermanFaegre & BensonFirst linked Sep 2012 · Named in SEC correspondence · 22 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.79× · Went dark 1.61× · 95% wipeout 1.21×
- Karen E. EberleLatham & Watkins LLPFirst linked Dec 1998 · Named in a filing · 5 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.33× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.00×
- Christopher L. KaufmanLatham & Watkins LLPFirst linked Jun 1996 · Named in SEC correspondence · 54 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.81× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.09×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Matthew G. HurdSullivan & Cromwell | Aug 2017 | Named in a filing | 19 | 1.53 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Douglas R. WrightFaegre & Benson | Sep 2012 | Named in SEC correspondence | 23 | 0.75 | 1.55 | 1.30 |
| Jeffrey A. ShermanFaegre & Benson | Sep 2012 | Named in SEC correspondence | 22 | 0.79 | 1.61 | 1.21 |
| Karen E. EberleLatham & Watkins LLP | Dec 1998 | Named in a filing | 5 | 1.33 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Christopher L. KaufmanLatham & Watkins LLP | Jun 1996 | Named in SEC correspondence | 54 | 0.81 | 0.00 | 1.09 |