• The SEC agreed to dismiss with prejudice its negligence claim against former View Inc
CFO Vidul Prakash after securing partial summary judgment on other claims.
• The SEC's decision was based on the facts and evidence developed in discovery and does not reflect its position on other cases.
• The SEC had previously sued Prakash in 2024, alleging he underreported warranty liabilities related to defective window installations in 2020 and 2021.
• In November 2025, a federal judge granted the SEC summary judgment on claims that Prakash solicited votes for a merger, falsified records, and violated federal securities laws.
• The case is Securities and Exchange Commission v
Prakash, case number 5:23-cv-03300, in the U.S
District Court for the Northern District of California.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission agreed to dismiss with prejudice its negligence claim against a former chief financial officer of "smart" glassmaker View Inc., after the agency secured partial summary judgment on other claims in the case last year.
The SEC's decision is "based on the facts and circumstances of this case and its ongoing review of the evidence, including evidence developed in discovery" and "does not reflect the SEC's position on any other case," according to a Friday joint stipulation with Vidul Prakash.
Craig Martin of Morrison Foerster LLP, who represents Prakash, said in a statement he is pleased the matter has been resolved.
"The dismissal affirms what we have said all along: Vidul Prakash always acted appropriately and with integrity," Martin said.
The SEC declined to comment. Counsel for Prakash noted that the trial in the case was set to begin later this month.
The SEC sued Prakash in 2024, accusing him of underreporting the company's warranty liabilities by signing off on reports in 2020 and 2021 showing costs of $22 million to $25 million for manufacturing replacement windows while the actual liabilities amounted to $48 million to $53 million in additional undisclosed window installation costs.
In a July summary judgment motion, Prakash contended, among other arguments, that the SEC couldn't prove its negligence claim because it couldn't show that View decided to cover all installation costs for replacement windows moving forward after it identified a defective sealing component in its bright windows in 2019.
But a California federal judge disagreed last November, finding a reasonable jury could conclude that "a decision was made to cover installation costs, and that Prakash knew or should have known about it." U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman also found genuine issues of material fact as to whether Prakash breached his duty of care and if his decision to withhold critical information from the company's accounting team regarding the coverage of installation costs led to the issuance of misstatements.
The SEC had filed a partial summary judgment motion, asking the court to find that Prakash solicited or permitted the use of his name to get votes for View's 2021 merger with CF Finance Acquisition Corp., a special purpose acquisition company, and that Prakash falsified books and records and used interstate mails or commerce to violate federal securities laws. Judge Freeman granted the SEC summary judgment on all three claims in November 2025, according to court records.
After View identified a defective sealing component in its smart windows in 2019, the company's warranty stated that it would replace defective windows but did not specify coverage of installation costs, according to the complaint.
View's leadership, however, decided it would cover the installation costs because "View was building its market, wanted to be good to its customers, and wanted repeat business," according to the complaint.
The SEC said Prakash pulled together a team of finance and accounting agents to determine the proper warranty accrual for costs associated with the defect. They advised View not to disclose installation costs as part of the warranty liability because View's written warranty did not obligate it to pay those installation costs.
Prakash is represented by William Frentzen, Craig Martin, Nicole Serfoss, Ryan Keats, James Hancock, Hanna Lauritzen and Katherine Molyneux of Morrison Foerster LLP, and Joseph M. Alioto Jr. of Alioto Legal, and Georgina Wakefield of Larson LLP.
The SEC is represented in-house by Jason Lee, Jason Bussey, Andrew Hefty, Drew Liming, Jacques Jordan Lamothe, David Nasse and Patrick Costello.
The case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Prakash, case number 5:23-cv-03300, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
S
Article Author
Sarah Jarvis
The Sponsor
Found it useful? Spread the word.
SEC Drops Negligence Suit Against Ex-View CFO | The Sponsor - The Sponsor
The Sponsor