Second Circuit Holds That PSLRA s Safe Harbor Provisions Shield American Express from Liability
|
|
- Melanie Green
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Securities LitigationAlert June 2010 Second Circuit Holds That PSLRA s Safe Harbor Provisions Shield American Express from Liability Until recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had never rendered an opinion analyzing the safe harbor for forward looking statements in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (the PSLRA ). It finally did so on May 18, 2010 in a decision that upheld a district court s dismissal of a lawsuit brought by investors in American Express against the company and several of its officers and directors. Among other things, a two-judge panel of the Second Circuit consisting of Judges Katzmann and Calabresi held in Slayton v. American Express Company, No cv, 2010 WL (2d Cir. May 18, 2010), that because the safe harbor provision is written in the disjunctive, a defendant is not liable under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for making an allegedly false or misleading forward-looking statement if the statement is identified and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language or is immaterial or the plaintiff fails to prove that it was made with actual knowledge that it was false or misleading. The panel also applied the weighing-of-inferences analysis dictated by the Supreme Court s decision in Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. to the actual knowledge prong of this inquiry. Thus, the relevant pleading standard for actual knowledge is whether a reasonable person, based on the facts alleged, would deem an inference that the defendants (1) did not genuinely believe the [forward looking] statement, (2) actually knew they had no reasonable basis for making the statement, or (3) were aware of undisclosed facts tending to seriously undermine the accuracy of the statement, cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference. The panel in Slayton found that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to meet these standards. Although the defendants forward-looking statement was neither accompanied by meaningful cautionary language nor immaterial, the court nevertheless affirmed the lower court s decision because the inference that defendants made the statement with actual knowledge that it was false or misleading was not at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged. The Second Circuit s decision in Slayton provides much needed guidance to issuers that routinely offer projections of anticipated future economic performance. In addition to confirming generally that the PSLRA safe harbor will protect issuers forward-looking statements that are accompanied by meaningful cautionary language, the court held that recklessness will not suffice to demonstrate that a defendant made a false or misleading forward-looking statement with fraudulent intent. The court also held that in order to be considered meaningful, cautionary language must convey substantive information about factors that realistically could cause results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statement, i.e., boilerplate warnings will not suffice. Separately, the Slayton court found that while the PSLRA safe harbor excludes from its protections forward-looking statements that are included in a financial statement Attorney Advertising 2010 Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
2 2 prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, that exclusion does not apply to statements in the Management s Discussion and Analysis section of a public filing. Because cases asserting claims under Section 10(b) premised on allegedly false or misleading forwardlooking statements are fact sensitive, we set out below in some detail a description of the background facts in Slayton which are somewhat intricate and the court s decision. Background Facts The plaintiffs in Slayton alleged that starting in the 1990s, American Express, through its subsidiary American Express Financial Advisors ( AEFA ), began to invest heavily in high-yield debt securities, including junk bonds and collateralized debt obligations ( CDOS ). In early 2001, after American Express disclosed losses in AEFA s high-yield debt portfolio of $123 million for fiscal-year 2000, American Express s chief executive officer Kenneth Chenault ordered a very hard look at AEFA s high-yield debt. Subsequently, in April 2001, American Express announced losses of $182 million in AEFA s high-yield debt portfolio for the first quarter of In early May 2001, Chenault was advised by AEFA s management that American Express was facing additional losses on its high-yield debt investments beyond those already booked. AEFA s CEO advised Chenault that [w]e really don t know enough to even give you a range. At Chenault s direction, American Express assembled a team to conduct a detailed internal review of AEFA s high-yield portfolio. While the internal review was ongoing, on May 15, 2001 American Express filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2001 (the Form 10-Q ). The company reported the $182 million in first quarter losses from AEFA s high-yield portfolio and explained, [t]he high yield losses reflect the continued deterioration of the high-yield portfolio and losses associated with selling certain bonds. Importantly, it added that [t]otal losses on these investments for the remainder of 2001 are expected to be substantially lower than in the first quarter. The Form 10-Q also cautioned several pages after the statement that losses for the remainder of 2001 were expected to be substantially lower that it contain[ed] forward-looking statements, which are subject to risks and uncertainties. It added that [f]actors that could cause actual results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements include... potential deterioration in the high-yield sector, which could result in further losses in AEFA s investment portfolio. In early July 2001, American Express completed its review of AEFA s high-yield portfolio. On July 18, 2001, American Express announced that its earnings for the second quarter of 2001 would likely decline 76% from the previous year in part because of an $826 million pre-tax charge to recognize additional write-downs in the high-yield debt portfolio at [AEFA] and losses associated with rebalancing the portfolio towards lower-risk securities. Plaintiffs Lawsuit Plaintiffs filed suit against American Express, Chenault and several other officers and directors of American Express and AEFA in July 2002, asserting, among others, claims under Section 10(b). In January 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging, among other things, that when the
3 3 defendants stated on May 15 in the Form 10-Q that losses for the remainder of 2001 were expected to be substantially lower, they knew that they had no reasonable basis upon which to say so because Chenault was expressly warned earlier that month that the $182 million first quarter write-down did not reflect the true magnitude of the deterioration of AEFA s high-yield debt portfolio. The defendants moved to dismiss, and the district court granted the motion, finding that: The information... Chenault received in May 2001 could support an inference of scienter because it suggests that [he] had access to information indicating that the May 15, 2001 statement was no longer accurate. However, in light of the fact that Defendants immediately put together a team to analyze all of AEFA s High Yield Debt and then announced the results of the analysis in July 2001, the more compelling inference is that Defendants were not acting with an intent to deceive, but rather attempting to quantify the extent of the problem before disclosing it to the market. In re American Express Co. Sec. Litig., No. 02 Civ. 5533, 2008 WL , *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2008). The district court therefore held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim with respect to the forward-looking statement contained in the Form 10-Q. The Second Circuit s Decision The PSLRA established a statutory safe-harbor for forward-looking statements that insulates defendants from liability to the extent that the statement is [(1)] identified as a forward-looking statement, and is accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statement; or [(2)]... immaterial; or [(3)]... the plaintiff fails to prove that the forward-looking statement... if made by a business entity; was... made by or with the approval of an executive officer of that entity; and... made or approved by such officer with actual knowledge by that officer that the statement was false or misleading. In Slayton, the Second Circuit noted that the safe harbor is written in the disjunctive. Thus, a defendant is not liable for a statement that is forward-looking and satisfies any of the aforementioned enumerated criteria. Turning to the facts, the court first found that the statement in American Express s Form 10-Q that [t]otal losses on these investments for the remainder of 2001 are expected to be substantially lower than in the first quarter was indeed forward looking insofar as it was both a projection of future losses and a statement of future economic performance. The plaintiffs argued that even if the statement in the Form 10-Q was forward looking, it was excluded from the PSLRA s safe harbor, which does not apply to forward-looking statements included in a financial statement prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles [ GAAP ]. However, because the statement at issue appeared in the Management s Discussion and Analysis section of the Form 10-Q, the court concluded that it was not excluded from the PSLRA s safe harbor because Congress explicitly included a statement of future economic performance... contained in a discussion and analysis of financial condition by the management in the PSLRA s definition of a forward-looking statement.
4 4 The court next considered whether American Express s forward looking statement was accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. The court noted that the Form 10-Q included a broad disclaimer that that it contain[ed] forward-looking statements, which are subject to risks and uncertainties, which were identified by words such as believe, expect, anticipate, optimistic, intend, aim, will, should and similar expressions.... It added that [f]actors that could cause actual results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements include... potential deterioration in the high-yield sector, which could result in further losses in AEFA s investment portfolio. The court disagreed with the plaintiffs argument that forward-looking statements must be specifically labeled as such, siding with defendants and the SEC, which submitted an amicus curiae brief in the case arguing that the facts and circumstances of the language used in a particular report will determine whether a statement is adequately identified as forward-looking. In particular, [t]he use of linguistic cues like we expect or we believe, when combined with an explanatory description of the company s intention to thereby designate a statement as forward-looking, generally should be sufficient to put the reader on notice that the company is making a forward-looking statement. However, the court was more troubled by the fact that defendants knew of the major and specific risk that rising defaults on the bonds underlying AEFA s investment-grade CDOs would cause deterioration in AEFA s portfolio at the time of the [Form 10-Q], and yet did not warn of it (emphasis added). The panel noted that the PSLRA protects forward-looking statements that are accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statement. While the PSLRA does not define important factors, the Conference Report accompanying the PSLRA explained that [u]nder this first prong of the safe harbor, boilerplate warnings will not suffice.... The cautionary statements must convey substantive information about factors that realistically could cause results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statement, such as, for example, information about the issuer s business. The Conference Report further advised, however, that this requirement was not intended to provide an opportunity for plaintiff counsel to conduct discovery on what factors were known to the issuer at the time the statement was made, and stressed that [c]ourts should not examine the state of mind of the person making the statement. While the court found these directions rather contradictory, it was unnecessary to decide this thorny issue because the panel concluded that defendants cautionary statements were vague and [verging] on the mere boilerplate, essentially warning that if our portfolio deteriorates, then there will be losses in our portfolio. The court noted that the cautionary language in the Form 10-Q warning of potential deterioration in the high-yield sector appeared in numerous earlier reports issued before American Express received new information in early May 2001 that demonstrated continuing deterioration of AEFA s high-yield portfolio, which belie[d] any contention that the cautionary language was tailored to the specific future projections. Having concluded that the cautionary language in the Form 10-Q was not sufficient to bring it within the PSLRA s safe harbor, the court next considered whether the facts alleged by plaintiffs demonstrated that defendants made their statement with actual knowledge that it was false or misleading. Relying on the Third Circuit s decision in Inst. Investors Group v. Avaya, Inc., the court held that because the safe harbor specifies an actual knowledge standard for forward-looking statements, the scienter
5 5 requirement for forward-looking statements is stricter than for statements of current fact. Whereas liability for the latter requires a showing of either knowing falsity or recklessness, liability for the former attaches only upon proof of knowing falsity. Moreover, the weighing-of-inference analysis articulated by the Supreme Court in Tellabs would apply to this inquiry. Thus, while accepting all allegations in the complaint as true, the court would consider whether all of the facts alleged, taken collectively, give rise to a strong inference of scienter. The court would also consider plausible opposing inferences, and the complaint would survive only if a reasonable person would deem the inference of scienter cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged. While it found this question close, the court concluded that application of Tellabs stringent standard to the facts alleged by plaintiffs required dismissal of the complaint. The court first considered the facts that supported an inference of scienter, including that the defendants were presented with the highly likely risk that AEFA s high-yield portfolio would deteriorate due to rising defaults in the underlying bonds in early May, and defendants did not know the extent of the likely deterioration and therefore had no reasonable basis for predicting that [t]otal losses on these investments for the remainder of 2001 are expected to be substantially lower than in the first quarter. While these facts would support an inference of scienter, the court found that the opposing non-fraudulent inference was no less compelling: The opposing nonfraudulent inference is that while the defendants knew that their high-yield portfolio was likely deteriorating, and that they did not know the extent of the deterioration, they subjectively believed that the extent of the deterioration would lead to losses that would be substantially less than $182 million.... While the defendants prediction that losses would be substantially lower does give us pause, nothing in the [record] directly supports the plaintiffs contention that the defendants had reason to believe that the scope of the expected losses would be comparably large, i.e. that they had no basis to believe that the extent of the losses would be substantially lower than $182 million. The court also found it significant that plaintiffs had not attributed any fraudulent motive to defendants. Absent allegations of motive to defraud, the court concluded that under our holistic review, [plaintiffs ] circumstantial evidence of actual knowledge must be correspondingly greater. And viewing the facts alleged holistically, [r]ather than suggesting an intent to deceive investors, the [record exhibited] the defendants engaging in a good-faith process to inform themselves and the public of the risks. Accordingly, the court held that defendants statement that they expected losses in AEFA s high-yield portfolio to be substantially less than $182 million was protected under the PSLRA safe harbor, and the district court therefore correctly dismissed the plaintiffs claim under Section 10(b). * * * * ** * * * ** * * * * * * * * * The Second Circuit s decision in Slayton confirms that the PSLRA safe harbor will protect a forwardlooking statement if the statement is identified and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language or is immaterial or the plaintiff fails to prove that it was made with actual knowledge that it was
6 6 false or misleading. In order to be considered meaningful, cautionary language must consist of more than mere boilerplate warnings. Rather, it must convey substantive information about factors that realistically could cause results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statement. The Second Circuit s decision also confirms that forward-looking statements made in annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC are entitled to safe harbor as long as they satisfy one of the criteria above and do not appear in the financial statement portion of the report. Perhaps most importantly, Slayton confirmed that recklessness will not suffice to demonstrate that a defendant made a false or misleading forward-looking statement with fraudulent intent, and courts must consider all non-fraudulent inferences when assessing whether a defendant had actual knowledge that a forwardlooking statement was false or misleading. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact any member of our Litigation Department. This memo was authored by the following attorneys: Arthur H. Aufses III Partner aaufses@kramerlevin.com (212) Alan R. Friedman Partner afriedman@kramerlevin.com (212) Stephen M. Sinaiko Partner ssinaiko@kramerlevin.com (212) Michael J. Sternhell Associate msternhell@kramerlevin.com (212) *** This memorandum provides general information on legal issues and developments of interest to our clients and friends. It is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters we discuss here. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss any of the issues raised in this memorandum, please call your Kramer Levin contact. Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY Phone: Fax: , avenue Hoche Paris Phone: (33-1) Fax: (33-1)
Latham & Watkins Corporate Department. The Lessons of Slayton v. American Express for Forward-Looking Statements
Number 1044 June 10, 2010 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Corporate Department Second Circuit Wades Into the PSLRA Safe Harbor The Lessons of Slayton v. American Express for Forward-Looking Statements Specific,
More informationUnited States Supreme Court Limits Investor Suits for Misleading Statements of Opinion
March 25, 2015 United States Supreme Court Limits Investor Suits for Misleading Statements of Opinion The United States Supreme Court issued a decision yesterday that resolves a split in the federal courts
More informationBroadening the Protections for Forward-Looking Statements
Published in the October 1999 issue of the Public Company Advocate. Broadening the Protections for Forward-Looking Statements by C. William Phillips and Kevin A. Fisher The ground-breaking Private Securities
More informationSecond Circuit Confirms that Statements of Opinion Need Not Be Accompanied by Disclosure of All Underlying Conflicting Information
May 3, 2018 Second Circuit Confirms that Statements of Opinion Need Not Be Accompanied by Disclosure of All Underlying Conflicting Information On Tuesday, May 1, 2018, Paul, Weiss obtained a significant
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case CIV-WPD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS
1 Erbey and Faris will be collectively referred to as the Individual Defendants. Case 9:14-cv-81057-WPD Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2015 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT
More informationCase 1:14-cv JSR Document 461 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:14-cv-09662-JSR Document 461 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: PETROBRAS SECURITIES LITIGATION 14-cv-9662 (JSR) MEMORANDUM ORDER -------------------------------------x
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge R. Brooke Jackson ORDER
Case 1:12-cv-02832-RBJ Document 47 Filed 07/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 28 Civil Action No. 12-cv-02832-RBJ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge R. Brooke Jackson (Consolidated
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION CASE NO. 12-CV-5162 ORDER
Case 5:12-cv-05162-SOH Document 146 Filed 09/26/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 2456 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION CITY OF PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
More informationThe Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 January, 1996 by Timothy K. Roake and Gordon K. Davidson The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 January, 1996 by Timothy K. Roake and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNION ASSET MANAGEMENT HOLDING AG, et al., v. Plaintiffs, SANDISK CORP., et al., Defendants. Case No. 15-cv-01455-VC ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
More informationNinth Circuit Establishes Pleading Requirements for Alleging Scheme Liability Under 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
July 24, 2006 EIGHTY PINE STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10005-1702 TELEPHONE: (212) 701-3000 FACSIMILE: (212) 269-5420 This memorandum is for general information purposes only and does not represent our legal
More informationRisk Factor Disclosures in Private Securities Offerings
ADVISORY LITIGATION PRIVATE EQUITY CONVERGENT Risk Factor Disclosures in Private Securities Offerings Erik Weingold eweingold@cla-law.com 800.750.9861 x106 Michael Stegawski michael@cla-law.com 800.750.9861
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA FRANK J. FOSBRE, JR., v. Plaintiff, LAS VEGAS SANDS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Case No. :-CV-00-KJD-GWF ORDER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Before the Court
More informationThe SEC Pleading Standard For Scienter
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com The SEC Pleading Standard For Scienter Law360,
More informationEighth Circuit Interprets Halliburton II
April 13, 2016 Eighth Circuit Interprets Halliburton II, Holding That Defendants Successfully Rebutted Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption of Reliance by Showing that the Alleged Misstatements Did Not Cause
More informationPost-Halliburton II Update: Eighth Circuit Denies Class Certification Based on Lack of Price Impact
April 2016 Follow @Paul_Hastings Post-Halliburton II Update: Eighth Circuit Denies Class Certification Based on Lack of Price Impact By Anthony Antonelli, Kevin P. Broughel, & Shahzeb Lari Introduction
More informationCOMMENTARY JONES DAY. In an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the justices unanimously disagreed. Echoing the Court s
March 2011 JONES DAY COMMENTARY U.S. Supreme Court rules that a drug s adverse event reports may be material to investors even though not statistically significant On March 22, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court
More informationDETECTING, INVESTIGATING & DOCUMENTING FRAUD PART ONE
DETECTING, INVESTIGATING & DOCUMENTING FRAUD PART ONE PRESENTED BY Christopher P. Seefer CHRISTOPHER P. SEEFER Mr. Christopher P. Seefer earned his Bachelor of Arts degree and his Master of Business Administration
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. No.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY PLAINTIFF, In His Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Plaintiff, COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, FRANCISCO D SOUZA,
More informationHigh Court Extends Reach Of Securities Fraud Rule 10b-5
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com High Court Extends Reach Of Securities Fraud
More informationCase 4:17-cv HSG Document 59 Filed 09/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMES ZIOLKOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. NETFLIX, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. -cv-00-hsg ORDER GRANTING
More informationEBERHARD SCHONEBURG, ) SECURITIES LAWS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION ) AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS ) CASE No.: SIMILARLY SITUATED, ) 7 ) 8 Plaintiff, ) CLASS ACTION vs. ) COMPLAINT 9 ) FOR VIOLATIONS
More informationBulk of Wells Fargo Shareholder Derivative Suit Survives Motions to Dismiss
December 4, 2017 Bulk of Wells Fargo Shareholder Derivative Suit Survives Motions to Dismiss On October 4, 2017, in In re Wells Fargo & Company Shareholder Derivative Litigation, which concerns alleged
More informationThis is a securities fraud case involving trading in commercial mortgage-backed
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, -v- 17-CV-3613 (JPO) OPINION AND ORDER JAMES H. IM, Defendant. J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge:
More informationCase 1:09-md PKC Document 538 Filed 04/12/12 Page 1 of 25
Case 1:09-md-02058-PKC Document 538 Filed 04/12/12 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------- IN RE: BANK OF AMERICA CORP.
More informationA Matter of Opinion: Parsing the Independent Auditor's Report in the Context of Omnicare
Accounting Policy & Practice Report: News Archive 2016 Latest Developments Analysis & Perspective AUDITOR LIABILITY A Matter of Opinion: Parsing the Independent Auditor's Report in the Context of Omnicare
More informationHow Escobar Reframes FCA's Materiality Standard
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com How Escobar Reframes FCA's Materiality Standard
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALAN GRABISCH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP JOHN T. JASNOCH (CA 0) jjasnoch@scott-scott.com 00 W. Broadway, Suite 00 San Diego, CA 0 Telephone: () - Facsimile:
More informationCase 8:07-cv AG-MLG Document 68 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 7
Case 8:07-cv-00970-AG-MLG Document 68 Filed 03/09/009 Page 1 of 7 1 3 4 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JS-6 O 11 SHELDON PITTLEMAN, Individually) CASE NO.
More informationSECURITIES LITIGATION & REGULATION
Westlaw Journal SECURITIES LITIGATION & REGULATION Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 20, ISSUE 14 / NOVEMBER 13, 2014 EXPERT ANALYSIS Beyond Halliburton: Securities
More informationCase 4:08-cv LLP Document 73 Filed 06/09/10 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 785 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 4:08-cv-04176-LLP Document 73 Filed 06/09/10 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 785 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED JUN 08 2010' DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION 4CLERK IN RE DAKTRONICS, INC. CIV
More informationStatus of RMBS Litigations
Status of RMBS Litigations February 28, 2018 2018 Ambac Financial Group, Inc. One State Street Plaza, New York, NY 10004 All Rights Reserved 800-221-1854 www.ambac.com Status of RMBS Litigations (1) Litigation
More informationGoing To Trial Against The SEC
Portfolio Media. Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Going To Trial Against The SEC Monday, July
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
cv Wyche v. Advanced Drainage Sys., Inc., et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
More informationAccountants Liability. An accountant may be liable under common law due to negligence or fraud.
Accountants Liability Liability under Common Law An accountant may be liable under common law due to negligence or fraud. Negligence A loss due to negligence occurs when an accountant violates the duty
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department Securities Litigation and Professional Liability Practice
Number 1312 April 4, 2012 Client Alert While the Second Circuit s formulation answers some questions about what transactions fall within the scope of Section 10(b), it also raises a host of new questions
More informationCase 9:17-cv RLR Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2018 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:17-cv-80500-RLR Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2018 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No.: 9:17-cv-80500-RLR KAREN A. CARVELLI, Individually and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.
Case 3:10-cv-01959-CAB-BLM Document 56 Filed 03/28/13 Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Todd Schueneman, vs. Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., UNITED
More informationDefendants. x. of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act ), 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a),
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE FUNDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, x Plaintiff, 08 Civ. 6857 (PKC) -against- INYX INC.,
More informationCase 4:05-cv RP-TJS Document 40 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 1 of 42
Case 4:05-cv-00388-RP-TJS Document 40 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 1 of 42 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION * BARRY YELLEN, on behalf of himself * and all
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISIO N
NORMAN OTTMAN, Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISIO N V. Civil Action No. AW-00-350 8 HANGER ORTHOPEDIC GROUP, INC., IVAL R. SABEL, and RICHARD A.
More informationCase: 3:09-cv slc Document #: 40 Filed: 11/24/2009 Page 1 of 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Case: 3:09-cv-00610-slc Document #: 40 Filed: 11/24/2009 Page 1 of 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ANCHORBANK, FSB, and ANCHORBANK UNITIZED FUND, on behalf of itself and all
More informationCase 1:17-cv PAC Document 37 Filed US DCS e 1 of 15 ELECTRONICALLY FILED DO C #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT : SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:17-cv-01954-PAC Document 37 Filed US DCS e 1 of 15 ELECTRONICALLY FILED DO C #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT : SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------X-- - - - - - DATE FILED: IN RE INSYS THERAPEUTICS,
More informationT he Supreme Court s 2015 decision in Omnicare,
Securities Regulation & Law Report Reproduced with permission from Securities Regulation & Law Report, 48 SRLR 538, 3/14/16. Copyright 2016 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com
More informationCase 3:08-cv JHM-DW Document 57 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 1 of 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION
Case 3:08-cv-00162-JHM-DW Document 57 Filed 06/23/2009 Page 1 of 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. IN RE HUMANA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
More informationCase 2:15-cv WB Document 1 Filed 09/29/15 Page 4 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Case No.: Defendants.
Case 2:15-cv-05386-WB Document 1 Filed 09/29/15 Page 4 of 25 ~~D'D UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARK SILVERSTEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
More informationCase 2:10-cv ADS-WDW Document 86 Filed 12/10/13 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1987
Case 2:10-cv-05064-ADS-WDW Document 86 Filed 12/10/13 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1987 FILED CLERK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------X
More informationCase 1:17-cv APM Document 13 Filed 11/16/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-01460-APM Document 13 Filed 11/16/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC. ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 1:17-cv-01460 ) v. ) ) BUZZFEED, INC.,
More informationStatus of RMBS Litigations
Status of RMBS Litigations May 7, 2018 2018 Ambac Financial Group, Inc. One State Street Plaza, New York, NY 10004 All Rights Reserved 800-221-1854 www.ambac.com Status of RMBS Litigations (1) Litigation
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION N2 SELECT, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 4:18-CV-00001-DGK N2 GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SOUTH FERRY LP, # 2, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, No. 06-35511 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. CV-04-01599-JCC
More informationKey Equity Inv Inc v. Sel Lab Marketing
2007 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-6-2007 Key Equity Inv Inc v. Sel Lab Marketing Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-1052
More informationCase 1:01-cv SSB-TSH Document 22 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:01-cv-00265-SSB-TSH Document 22 Filed 02/10/2004 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION In re: Kroger Company ) Case No. 1:01-CV-265
More informationCase 1:08-cv BSJ-THK Document 95 Filed 06/10/2010 Page 1 of 19
Case 1:08-cv-06613-BSJ-THK Document 95 Filed 06/10/2010 Page 1 of 19 USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED x DOC #: DATE FILED: o In re CIT
More informationCase 2:13-cv MMB Document 173 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:13-cv-05101-MMB Document 173 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TALBOT TODD SMITH CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 13-5101 UNILIFE CORPORATION,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. Nos &
Case: 16-2436 Document: 003112714483 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Nos. 16-2436 & 16-3796 NOT PRECEDENTIAL RYAN FAIN, on behalf of himself and all
More informationSECURITIES REFORM: ITS EFFECT ON LITIGATION AND CAPITAL FORMATION
SECURITIES REFORM: ITS EFFECT ON LITIGATION AND CAPITAL FORMATION By Martin D. Chitwood and Christi C. Mobley Published in Calendar Call, Vol II, Winter 1996, No. 4 On December 22, 1995, the Private Securities
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:07-cv-00402-JDS Document 40 Filed 11/10/2009 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DANA ROSS, Individually and on Behalf ) Civil Action No. 1:07-CV-00402 of Others
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS. Lead plaintiff Brian Perez and additional plaintiff Robert
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT -------------------------------- x BRIAN PEREZ, INDIVIDUALLY and on : behalf of all others similarly : situated, and ROBERT E. LEE, : Plaintiffs, :
More informationCase 3:17-cv AET-DEA Document 35 Filed 09/24/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 754 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 3:17-cv-04056-AET-DEA Document 35 Filed 09/24/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 754 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY THOMAS BIONDOLILLO, individually and on behalf of
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE. Case No.:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE CYNTHIA PITTMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Case No.: v. Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF
More informationS ince its enactment in 1933, Section 11 of the Securities
Securities Regulation & Law Report Reproduced with permission from Securities Regulation & Law Report, 48 SRLR 1730, 8/29/16. Copyright 2016 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 14-3178 IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, et al. lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellees v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants
More informationCase: 1:18-cv Document #: 18 Filed: 10/03/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:55
Case: 1:18-cv-04586 Document #: 18 Filed: 10/03/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:55 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MELISSA RUEDA, individually and on
More informationCase 2:17-cv JNP-BCW Document 29 Filed 01/08/19 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
Case 2:17-cv-01203-JNP-BCW Document 29 Filed 01/08/19 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH R. FLOYD ASHER, v. Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION
More informationCase 2:07-cv MJP Document 78 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case :0-cv-0000-MJP Document Filed 0//00 Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 KENNETH McGUIRE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DENDREON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
More informationOPINION AND ORDER. Securities Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the
ORIGI NAL ' Case 1:05-cv-05323-LTS Document 62 Filed 07/14/2006 Page 1 of 14 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: x DATE FILED: D 7/,V/
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSEPH CURRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; CITY OF MIAMI FIRE FIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT
More informationFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:13-cv-03074-TWT Document 47 Filed 08/13/14 Page 1 of 16 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION SPENCER ABRAMS Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al.,
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:-cv-000-LHK Document Filed0// Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION CITY OF ROYAL OAK RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., v. Plaintiffs, JUNIPER
More informationCase 1:18-cv ER Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 25
Case 1:18-cv-00466-ER Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHARLES FERRARE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
More informationCase 1:11-cv PKC Document 106 Filed 10/26/11 Page 1 of 15
Case 1:11-cv-00404-PKC Document 106 Filed 10/26/11 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------x UNITED STATES
More informationStatus of RMBS Litigations
Status of RMBS Litigations August 6, 2018 2018 Ambac Financial Group, Inc. One State Street Plaza, New York, NY 10004 All Rights Reserved 800-221-1854 www.ambac.com Status of RMBS Litigations (1) Litigation
More informationSupreme Court Rejects Scheme Liability Theory under Rule 10b-5 James Hamilton, J.D., LL.M. CCH Principal Analyst
Supreme Court Rejects Scheme Liability Theory under Rule 10b-5 James Hamilton, J.D., LL.M. CCH Principal Analyst 2 Introduction In a significant case for the business and securities professional communities,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 2:05-cv-02367-SRC-CLW Document 373 Filed 08/29/12 Page 1 of 23 PageID: 17720 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY IN RE MERCK & CO., INC. SECURITIES, : DERIVATIVE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
**E-Filed //0** IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 1 1 1 1 1 ROBERT CURRY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff,
More informationCase 1:14-cv FB-RLM Document 492 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13817
Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-RLM Document 492 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13817 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------x
More information150 Spear Street, Suite 1800
1 Daniel C. Girard (State Bar No. 114826) Stewart H. Foreman (State Bar No. 61149) dcg@girardgibbs.com foreman@freelandlaw.com 2 Jonathan K. Levine (State Bar No. 2209) FREELAND COOPER & FOREMAN LLP jkl@girardgibbs.com
More informationThe Supreme Court Rejects Liability of Customers, Suppliers and Other Secondary Actors in Private Securities Fraud Litigation
The Supreme Court Rejects Liability of Customers, Suppliers and Other Secondary Actors in Private Securities Fraud Litigation Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. (In re Charter
More informationUniversal Health Services, Inc. v. Escobar
Universal Health Services, Inc. v. Escobar MARK E. HADDAD * AND NAOMI A. IGRA ** WHY IT MADE THE LIST Escobar 1 made this year s list because it addressed the reach of one of the government s most powerful
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
TDC Lending v. Private Capital Group et al Doc. 105 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION TDC LENDING LLC, a Utah limited liability company, v. Plaintiff, PRIVATE
More informationTellabs and Pleading a Strong Inference of Scienter: Is a New Split Emerging over its Application in Private Securities Litigation?
PROGRAM MATERIALS Program #1926 April 1, 2009 Tellabs and Pleading a Strong Inference of Scienter: Is a New Split Emerging over its Application in Private Securities Litigation? Copyright 2009 by Thomas
More informationCase: , 08/17/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 57-1, Page 1 of 12 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-56897, 08/17/2017, ID: 10548605, DktEntry: 57-1, Page 1 of 12 (1 of 17) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED AUG 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationBenefits And Dangers Of An SEC Wells Submission
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Benefits And Dangers Of An SEC Wells Submission
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Case: 3:08-cv-00314-slc Document #: 36 Filed: 07/09/2009 Page 1 of 45 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MICHAEL SCHULTZ, JOHN SCALA, HUUB VAN ROOSMALEN, KIP KIRCHER,
More informationCase 1:14-cv WHP Document 103 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:14-cv-09438-WHP Document 103 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------X BENJAMIN GROSS, : Plaintiff, : -against- : GFI
More informationCase 9:09-cv RC Document 100 Filed 08/10/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 991 **NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION**
Case 9:09-cv-00124-RC Document 100 Filed 08/10/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 991 **NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION** IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION UNITED
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Submitted: May 4, 2018 Decided: December 11, 2018) Docket No.
-0 0 0 0 0 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 0 (Submitted: May, 0 Decided: December, 0) Docket No. 0 KRISTEN MANTIKAS, KRISTIN BURNS, and LINDA CASTLE, individually and
More informationmg Doc 28 Filed 06/20/14 Entered 06/20/14 17:18:03 Main Document Pg 1 of 10
Pg 1 of 10 Hearing Date and Time: July 23, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. (Prevailing Eastern Time) Response Date and Time: July 4, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. (Prevailing Eastern Time) UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:11-cv-00429-DWF-FLN Document 41 Filed 03/20/12 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, Marian Haynes, and Rene LeBlanc, individually and on behalf
More informationFried Frank FraudMail Alert No /17/16
FraudMail Alert Please click here to view our archives CIVIL FALSE CLAIMS ACT: Supreme Court Rejects DOJ s Expansive Theory for FCA Falsity and Requires Rigorous Materiality, Scienter Standards in All
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES GENERAL
Case 2:13-cv-09174-MWF-VBK Document 60 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:1617 Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge Deputy Clerk: Cheryl Wynn Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
More informationCase 1:10-cv HB Document 30 Filed 08/31/10 Page 1 of 12 : : : : ECF Case : : : : : : : ECF Case
Case 110-cv-00532-HB Document 30 Filed 08/31/10 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x -ELLIOTT ASSOCIATES,
More informationBusiness Crimes Perspectives
Business Crimes Perspectives In This Issue: March 2010 Sitting en banc, the First Circuit vacated a key portion of its prior panel decision and affirmed the district court s dismissal of the SEC s Section
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Case No.: Plaintiff, Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PLAINTIFF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Case No.: vs. Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:11-cv-01173-RGA Document 25 Filed 04/23/13 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 664 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MARTIN BARTESCH, FRED BRYANT And JOSEPH P. CRAIG, Individually
More informationFTC's Proposed Petroleum Market Manipulation Rule And Market Manipulation Workshop
FTC's Proposed Petroleum Market Manipulation Rule And Market Manipulation Workshop Washington, DC November 19, 2008 On November 6, 2008, the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) held a workshop in which its
More informationUS legal and regulatory developments Prohibition on energy market manipulation
US legal and regulatory developments Prohibition on energy market manipulation Ian Cuillerier Hunton & Williams, 200 Park Avenue, 52nd Floor, New York, NY 10166-0136, USA. Tel. +1 212 309 1230; Fax. +1
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ORDER APPOINTING LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVING LEAD AND LIAISON COUNSEL
Case: 2:12-cv-00604-MHW-NMK Doc #: 17 Filed: 03/05/13 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 199 Alan Willis, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff, V. Case No. 2:12 cv-604
More informationCase 1:11-cv RGA Document 50 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 568 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:11-cv-00217-RGA Document 50 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 568 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE KENNETH HOCH, : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : BARBARA
More information