Latham & Watkins Litigation Department
|
|
- Gabriel Jason Garrett
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Number 665 January 11, 2008 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Virginia Rocket Docket Deemed Proper Venue for Securities Fraud Actions Based Upon Filing of Financial Statements with SEC through EDGAR Going forward, plaintiffs can safely bring an action alleging securities fraud based on the filing of allegedly fraudulent financial statements in the Eastern District of Virginia, knowing that their case will not be dismissed for lack of venue. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that the act of transmitting financial statements to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) through its computer server in Alexandria, Virginia, is sufficient to make the Eastern District of Virginia an appropriate venue to hear cases alleging securities fraud based upon such filings. 1 The court explained that it is irrelevant whether the person who submitted the financial statements could have reasonably foreseen that the SEC s Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval system (EDGAR) computer server is located in Virginia. In other words, all US and non-us registrants that file financial statements with the SEC through EDGAR may find themselves facing lawsuits in Virginia. This is particularly noteworthy because the Eastern District of Virginia is known as the rocket docket. Cases are subject to expedited discovery and pretrial procedures and frequently get to a jury verdict in less than 10 months. By way of comparison, the average time for a case to reach a verdict in all US District Courts is just under two years. 2 US v. Johnson involved a criminal prosecution of a CEO who was accused of submitting financial statements to the SEC that contained fraudulently inflated revenue figures in violation of 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5. Because the relevant venue statute equally applies to civil actions, and because the SEC requires virtually all US registrants and non-us private issuers to submit their financial statements electronically through the EDGAR computer server, the Johnson decision affects numerous future lawsuits involving allegations of securities fraud. 3 In short, the Department of Justice, the SEC and private plaintiffs can now bring cases alleging securities fraud based on the filing of improper financial statements in the Eastern District of Virginia without risk of dismissal for lack of venue, and take advantage of the expedited proceedings of the rocket docket. Filing of False and Misleading Form 10-Q Via EDGAR Led to Securities Fraud Prosecution in Virginia In January 2005, Charles Johnson was indicted for securities fraud and related offenses in the Eastern District of Virginia. Mr. Johnson was the CEO of PurchasePro.com, Inc. (PurchasePro), a publicly owned company that sold Internet procurement software designed to facilitate business-to- Latham & Watkins operates as a limited liability partnership worldwide with an affiliated limited liability partnership conducting the practice in the United Kingdom and Italy. Under s Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding our conduct under s Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 885 Third Avenue,, NY , Phone: Copyright 2008 Latham & Watkins. All Rights Reserved.
2 business transactions on the Internet. The indictment charged that in 2001, Mr. Johnson had inflated PurchasePro s reported revenue figures through the use of backdated contracts and false entries in the company s books and records. These revenue figures were included in a quarterly revenue report (Form 10-Q) that was electronically submitted to the SEC through the EDGAR computer server in Alexandria, Virginia. Count 3 of the indictment charged Mr. Johnson with causing the filing of false and fraudulent documents with the SEC in violation of, among other provisions, 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. There was no dispute that the transmission of PurchasePro s Form 10-Q to the EDGAR computer server was the only contact between Mr. Johnson and the Eastern District of Virginia. 4 Following the indictment, Mr. Johnson moved to dismiss count 3, asserting that venue in the Eastern District of Virginia was improper under 27 of the Exchange Act. 5 Voicing concern that it was not reasonably foreseeable for Mr. Johnson that he would be subject to prosecution in Virginia based on the happenstance of the location of the EDGAR computer server, the District Court granted the motion and dismissed the allegation that Mr. Johnson had caused the filing of false and fraudulent documents with the SEC. 6 Reviewing the nature of the charged offense and the language of 27 of the Exchange Act, the Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed. Virginia Venue Permitted because Transmission of False Form 10-Q Via EDGAR was Material to Filing Fraudulent Documents with SEC Offense On appeal, Mr. Johnson argued that the lower court was correct and that venue in Virginia was improper under 27 of the Exchange Act because the essence of the alleged offense was the filing of fraudulent documents with the SEC in Washington, D.C., not its EDGAR computer server that happened to be located in Virginia. 7 Mr. Johnson further noted that the same lower court had granted a motion in US v. Ferguson seeking to transfer a case from Virginia to Connecticut because the SEC s decision to locate EDGAR, the electronic filing system and to host the SEC website on a computer server in Alexandria, Virginia will not in and of itself transform the Eastern District of Virginia into the exclusive jurisdiction for criminal securities fraud cases. 8 The Court of Appeals rejected Mr. Johnson s argument because the broad language of 27 of the Exchange Act does not limit venue to the jurisdiction where the essence of an alleged offense occurred. 9 Section 27 of the Exchange Act provides in relevant part: Any criminal proceeding may be brought in the district wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation occurred. Any suit or action to enforce any liability or duty created by this title or rules and regulations thereunder, or to enjoin any violation of such title or rules and regulations may be brought in any such district or in the district wherein the defendant is found 10 The court explained that [a]s a result, the venue-sustaining act need not constitute the core of the alleged violation but merely one that is material to the charged offense. 11 Because it was undisputed that the allegedly fraudulent documents were sent to the Eastern District of Virginia when they were electronically submitted to the EDGAR computer server, the court held that a material act to the charged offense of causing the filing of fraudulent documents with the SEC had occurred in Virginia and that venue was proper under 27 of the Exchange Act. 12 The court expressly noted that its
3 interpretation of 27 of the Exchange Act would also apply to civil actions. 13 The Court of Appeals also responded to Mr. Johnson s argument that in US v. Ferguson the lower court had transferred a case to Connecticut because the defendant s contact with Virginia was principally based on the transmitting of documents to the SEC through the EDGAR filing system. The court explained that there is an important distinction between deciding whether a case should be transferred to another jurisdiction and whether venue is permissible in the first place: when determining whether to transfer venue to the District of Connecticut, the district court in Ferguson implicitly assumed that venue was permissible in the Eastern District [of Virginia] otherwise, it would not have needed to weigh the relative inconveniences to begin with. 14 Following this decision, defendants accused of securities fraud based on the filing of allegedly fraudulent documents to the SEC will thus no longer be able to get a case dismissed for lack of venue, and will be limited to moving for a transfer to a more convenient forum instead a matter that is largely discretionary. 15 Foreseeability not Required for Establishing Venue in Actions Involving Securities Fraud As a second, independent ground for upholding the judgment of the district court, Mr. Johnson argued that venue in Virginia would be improper because he could not have reasonably foreseen that the PurchasePro s Form 10-Q would be transmitted to Virginia. Mr. Johnson argued that he instead reasonably believed that PurchasePro s financial information would be transmitted to the District of Columbia. In this regard, he pointed out that the SEC s principal office is located in the District of Columbia, that the SEC s address indicated at the top of Form 10-Q is in the District of Columbia, and that a US federal regulation governing the filing of documents with the SEC states that [a]ll papers required to be filed with the Commission pursuant to the [Exchange Act] or the rules and regulations thereunder shall be filed at the principal office in Washington, D.C. 16 The Court of Appeals rejected this argument as well because the plain text of [ 27 of the Exchange Act] does not permit us to hold that such a foreseeability requirement exists. 17 Section 27 of the Exchange Act provides that any criminal proceeding and any suit or action to enforce any liability or duty created by the Exchange Act may be brought in the district wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation occurred. 18 Because venue is similar to a jurisdictional element and thus typically lacks any sort of knowledge or foreseeability prerequisite, the court refused to read a foreseeability requirement into 27 of the Exchange Act. 19 Instead, the court held that the sole act of transmitting allegedly fraudulent financial statements to the EDGAR computer server in Alexandria was sufficient for establishing venue in the Eastern District of Virginia. 20 Following Johnson, Defendants in Securities Fraud Cases Can Still Seek Transfer to Another Forum but Cannot Get Charges Dismissed from the Eastern District of Virginia Based on Improper Venue Because of the broad application of 27 of the Exchange Act to civil and criminal cases alleging securities fraud, and because the SEC requires virtually all US registrants and non- US private issuers to use EDGAR to file financial statements, the Court of Appeals decision in US v. Johnson will impact numerous future cases involving
4 allegations of securities fraud. Going forward, plaintiffs can safely bring an action alleging securities fraud based on the filing of allegedly fraudulent financial statements in the Eastern District of Virginia, knowing that their case will not be dismissed for lack of venue. Civil and criminal defendants, on the other hand, will be limited to seeking a discretionary transfer to a more convenient forum and can no longer successfully attempt to get such an action or count dismissed because they could not have reasonably foreseen that the electronic transmission of financial statements to the SEC would make them subject to suit in Virginia. 21 It is still unclear how the Eastern District of Virginia will react to its new status as the default venue for securities fraud actions. Because of the inherent discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion seeking a transfer, the court could embrace the opportunity and become a leading venue for securities jurisprudence. Alternatively, the court could determine that simply because it is one permissible venue, it is not normally the most convenient forum and routinely begin to grant motions seeking to transfer the case to a jurisdiction with a greater connection to the litigation. 22 Either way, companies facing securities fraud actions in Virginia will benefit from retaining counsel experienced in practicing in the rocket docket. Endnotes 1 U.S. v. Johnson, 2007 WL (4th Cir. Dec. 14, 2007) 2 During the 12 months ending September 30, 2006, the median time interval from filing to disposition of civil cases by means of a trial in the Eastern District of Virginia was 9.8 months. In contrast, the median time interval in the Southern District of was 24 months, in the Southern District of California 25 months and in the District of Columbia 36 months. See Judicial Business of the United States Courts, Table C-5: US District Courts Median Time Intervals From Filing to Disposition of Civil Cases Terminated, By District and Method of Disposition, During the 12-Month Period Ending September 30, 2006, available at judbus2006/appendices/c5.pdf. 3 See SEC Release (US registrants), available at and SEC Release (foreign private issuers), available at gov/rules/final/ htm. 4 Johnson, 2007 WL , at *1. 5 Id. at *2. 6 Id. See also appellant s brief, p. 7 (quoting hearing transcript reflecting the lower court s concern). 7 Id. at *3 8 Id. at *4, citing US v. Ferguson, 432 F. Supp. 2d 559, 569 (E.D. Va. 2006) 9 Id. at *3, citing In re. AES Corp. Sec. Litig., 240 F. Supp. 2d 557, 559 (E.D.Va. 2003) U.S.C. 78aa. Any criminal proceeding may be brought in the district wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation occurred. Id. Civil cases may be brought in any such district or in the district wherein the defendant is found. Id. (emphasis added). 11 Johnson, 2007 WL , at *3, citing In re. AES Corp. Sec. Litig., 240 F. Supp. 2d at 559 (internal quotation marks omitted). 12 Id. 13 Id. at *4. 14 Id. at *5. 15 Under Fed. R. Crim P. 21(b), a defendant seeking a transfer to another venue must demonstrate that prosecution of the case in the district where the count was properly filed would result in a substantial balance of inconvenience to the defendant. Ferguson, 432 F. Supp. 2d at 561 (citations omitted). In considering the inconvenience to the defendant, the court may weigh the: (a) location of the defendant; (b) location of witnesses; (c) location of events likely to be in issue; (d) location of documents and records; (e) disruption of the defendant s business; (f) expense to the parties; (g) location of counsel; (h) relative accessibility of place of trial; (i) docket conditions in each district; and (j) any other specific element which might affect the transfer. See id., citing U.S. v. Heaps, 39 F.3d 479, 483 (4th Cir. 1994). Courts also have discretion in deciding on transfer motions in civil cases. Under 28 U.S.C 1404(a), a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of
5 justice. The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently explained that this provision was intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an individualized, caseby-case consideration of convenience and fairness. Finkel v. Subaru of America, 2006 US Dist. LEXIS 69064, at *5 (E.D.Va. Sept. 26, 2006) quoting Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). 16 Johnson, 2007 WL , at *5, citing 17 C.F.R (a). 17 Id. at *6. Because the Court of Appeals relied on the plain language of 27 of the Exchange Act, it refused to reach the issue whether there is a foreseeability requirement for establishing venue in the context of wire fraud. Id. In this regard, the court noted the split between the Second Circuit where foreseeability is required to establish venue in cases alleging wire fraud and the Third and Ninth Circuits where foreseeability is not required. Compare US v. Svoboda, 347 F.3d 471, 483 (2d. Cir. 2003) with US v. Angotti, 105 F.3d 539, 543 (9th Cir. 1997) and US v. Goldberg, 830 F.2d 459, 465 (3d Cir. 1987) U.S.C. 78aa (emphasis added). 19 Johnson, 2007 WL , at *6, citing US v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 330 (3d Cir. 2002) and Fed. R. Crim. P Id. 21 A number of factors will need to be considered in determining whether a defendant who faces allegations of securities fraud should seek a transfer to another jurisdiction. In making this determination, non-us private issuers should include an evaluation of the willingness of each forum to dismiss claims of non-us purchasers based on the lack of a sufficient connection with the United States and the availability of an alternative recourse for such purchasers to address their alleged injuries, including global settlements abroad. See, e.g., In re Royal Dutch/Shell Transport Securities Litigation (Royal Dutch II), Civ. No (JAP), 2007 US Dist. LEXIS (D.N.J. Nov. 13, 2007) discussed in Latham Client Alert No. 656, December 6, See, e.g., Ferguson, 432 F. Supp. 2d at 562 (granting transfer motion because having this matter adjudicated in this district will result in a substantial balance of inconvenience to the defendants. ) (citations omitted).
6 If you have any questions about this Client Alert, please contact one of the authors listed below: Blair Connelly Richard D. Owens Jeroen van Kwawegen Annette Rosskopf Virginia Tent Christian J. Word Northern Virginia Finn H.O. Zeidler Frankfurt Emmanuel Drai Paris Or any of the following attorneys listed to the right. Office locations: Barcelona Brussels Chicago Frankfurt Hamburg Hong Kong London Los Angeles Madrid Milan Moscow Munich New Jersey Northern Virginia Orange County Paris San Diego San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Tokyo Washington, D.C. Client Alert is published by Latham & Watkins as a news reporting service to clients and other friends. The information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorneys listed below or the attorney whom you normally consult. A complete list of our Client Alerts can be found on our Web site at If you wish to update your contact details or customize the information you receive from Latham & Watkins, please visit to subscribe to our global client mailings program. Barcelona José Luis Blanco Brussels Jean Paul Poitras Chicago Sean M. Berkowitz Frankfurt Volker Schaefer Bernd-Wilhelm Schmitz Hamburg Ulrich Börger Sebastian Seelmann- Eggebert Hong Kong Joseph A. Bevash London John Hull David L. Mulliken Los Angeles Pamela S. Palmer Robert W. Perrin Madrid José Luis Blanco Milan David Miles Moscow Mark M. Banovich Munich Jörg Kirchner New Jersey Alan E. Kraus David J. McLean David M. Brodsky Jamie L. Wine Northern Virginia Eric L. Bernthal Orange County Jon D. Anderson Paris Patrick Dunaud Emmanuel Drai San Diego Michael J. Weaver San Francisco Peter A. Wald Bob Sims Shanghai Rowland Cheng Silicon Valley Paul H. Dawes John C. Tang Singapore Mark A. Nelson Tokyo Bernard E. Nelson Daniel C. Freed Washington, D.C. William R. Baker Douglas N. Greenburg
Client Alert. Rome II and the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations. Introduction
Number 789 20 January 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Rome II and the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations Rome II will enable parties doing business across borders to
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 522 July 18, 2006 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Second Circuit Finds State Common Law Claims Involving FDA Premarket Approved Medical Devices Preempted Riegel is a significant
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 802 February 9, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department TARP Special Inspector General Introduces New Initiatives Targeting Recipients of TARP Funds A false response to a LOI could
More informationEconomic Torts Unravelled
Number 599 16 May 2007 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Economic Torts Unravelled Hello! is not just a case about celebrity exclusives and tabloid spoilers, but has important implications
More informationClient Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 623 August 30, 2007 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Credit/Debit Card Litigation Under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) By Mark S. Mester and Livia M. Kiser
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 866 May 14, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department The Third Circuit Clarifies the Class Action Fairness Act s Local Controversy Exception to Federal Jurisdiction In addressing
More informationLatham & 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 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 informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 600 June 4, 2007 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Accessibility Litigation Under the Fair Housing Act This Client Alert provides an overview of the Act, identifies the most important
More informationClient Alert. Background on Discovery Requests under Section 1782
Number 1383 August 13, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Eleventh Circuit Holds That Parties to Private International Commercial Arbitral Tribunals May Seek Discovery Assistance
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 1391 September 12, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Federal Circuit Holds that Liability for Induced Infringement Requires Infringement of a Patent, But No Single Entity
More informationon significant health issues pertaining to their products, and of encouraging the
Number 836 March 17, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Wyeth v. Levine and the Contours of Conflict Preemption Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act The decision in Wyeth reinforces the importance
More informationLatham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department
Number 937 September 22, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department The Local Controversy Exception to the Class Action Fairness Act Preston, Kaufman and Coffey An understanding
More informationLatham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department
Number 1090 October 13, 2010 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department Recent Legislative Changes Affecting Pending and Future Projects Under CEQA This legislation is intended
More informationLatham & Watkins Health Care Practice
Number 878 June 8, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Health Care Practice This initiative represents a continuation and expansion of interagency efforts begun more than two years ago and illustrates an
More informationClient Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 548 October 31, 2006 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 If the defendant uses a famous mark in a way that diminishes the value of the plaintiff
More informationLatham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department
Number 609 June 22, 2007 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department Leveling the Playing Field in Mass Tort Litigation: Texas Mass Tort Plaintiffs Required to Present Causation
More informationLatham & Watkins Finance Department
Number 1025 May 13, 2010 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Pending a decision on BNY s appeal, structured transaction and derivative lawyers should carefully consider the drafting of current
More informationLatham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department
Number 952 November 4, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department Second Circuit Revives Federal Common Law Nuisance Suits Against Greenhouse Gas Emitters in Connecticut
More informationLatham & Watkins Finance Department
Number 1147 February 17, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department The Settlement does not affirm or overturn Judge Peck s controversial decision in the US Litigation barring enforcement of
More informationLatham & Watkins Finance Department. Ninth Circuit Decisions Threaten Market-Based Rate Contracts
Number 580 March 21, 2007 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Ninth Circuit Decisions Threaten Market-Based Rate Contracts The Ninth Circuit has redefined how FERC should apply the test in
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation and Finance Departments. Supreme Court Limits Reach of Non-Article III Courts Jurisdiction
Number 1210 July 5, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation and Finance Departments Supreme Court Limits Reach of Non-Article III Courts Jurisdiction Under Article III, the judicial power of the
More informationLatham & Watkins Corporate Department
Number 1171 April 7, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Corporate Department Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano: Changes in Adverse Event Reporting The Court s refusal to adopt a bright-line rule
More informationClient Alert. Revisiting Venue: Patriot Coal and the Interest of Justice. Background
Number 1447 January 2, 2013 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Revisiting Venue: Patriot Coal and the Interest of Justice Steps taken by parties on the eve of filing for bankruptcy are likely
More informationDelaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Lock-Up Agreements Are a Valuable Tool Not a Violation of the Bankruptcy Code
Latham & Watkins Number 1467 February 13, 2013 Finance Department Delaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Lock-Up Agreements Are a Valuable Tool Not a Violation of the Bankruptcy Code Josef S. Athanas, Caroline
More informationClient Alert. Circuit Courts Weigh In on Treatment of Trademark License Agreements in Bankruptcy
Number 1438 December 12, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Circuit Courts Weigh In on Treatment of Trademark License Agreements in Bankruptcy Recent bankruptcy appellate rulings have
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 1241 September 28, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Practical Implications of the America Invents Act on United States Patent Litigation This Client Alert addresses the key
More informationClient Alert. Natural Resource Damages After NJDEP v. Dimant. The Spill Act. Facts of Dimant
Number 1409 October 2, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department Natural Resource Damages After NJDEP v. Dimant In a unanimous opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court held
More informationLatham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources
Number 851 April 15, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Courts Remain Split on Whether Denial of Class Certification Deprives Federal Courts of CAFA Jurisdiction Federal district
More informationClient Alert. Number 1355 July 3, Latham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 1355 July 3, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department District Court Ruling Paves the Way for More Negligent Securities Fraud Enforcement Actions Under Sections 17(a)(2) and (3)
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 877 June 8, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Significant False Claims Act Amendments Enacted as Part of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 In the upcoming months,
More informationNEFF CORP FORM S-8. (Securities Registration: Employee Benefit Plan) Filed 11/21/14
NEFF CORP FORM S-8 (Securities Registration: Employee Benefit Plan) Filed 11/21/14 Address 3750 N.W. 87TH AVENUE SUITE 400 MIAMI, FL 33178 Telephone 3055133350 CIK 0001617667 Symbol NEFF SIC Code 7359
More informationClient Alert. Background
Number 1481 March 5, 2013 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department US Supreme Court Holds That Proof Of Materiality Is Not A Prerequisite To Certifying A Securities Fraud Class Action Under
More informationSarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Registration No. 333-101826 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 POST-EFFECTIVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FORM S-8 REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 Sarepta
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/17/ :03 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 57 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/17/2017 ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4 Joshua G. Hamilton Direct Dial: + 1.424.653.5509 joshua.hamilton@lw.com 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 Tel: +1.213.485.1234 Fax: +1.213.891.8763 www.lw.com
More informationJune s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
JUNE 22, 2016 SIDLEY UPDATE June s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This Sidley Update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. A Southern
More informationUSDA Rulemaking Petition
USDA Rulemaking Petition Sound Horse Conference 2010 Joyce M. Wang Latham & Watkins LLP Latham & Watkins operates as a limited liability partnership worldwide with affiliated limited liability partnerships
More informationDepository Financial Institution Liability: Tough Lessons Learned About Fraudulent Electronic Funds Transfers
Depository Financial Institution Liability: Tough Lessons Learned About Fraudulent Electronic Funds Transfers ALERT January 9, 2019 A. Michael Pratt prattam@pepperlaw.com A federal district court in the
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Plaintiff, Case No. 17-CR-124
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, Case No. 17-CR-124 MARCUS HUTCHINS, Defendant. DEFENDANT S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT (IMPROPER
More informationLaw Introducing Rules for Localization of Personal Data of Russian Citizens
Law Introducing Rules for Localization of Personal Data of Russian Citizens Natalia Gulyaeva Partner, Head of IPMT practice for Russia/CIS Moscow Bret Cohen Associate, Privacy & Information Management
More informationPrinciples of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations
Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations Money Transmitter Regulators Association 2009 Annual Conference September 3, 2009 Chuck Rosenberg Hogan & Hartson 555 13th Street, N.W. Washington,
More informationNot So Basic: Supreme Court to Revisit the Fraud-on-the Market Presumption of Reliance
Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Number 1617 November 27, 2013 Not So Basic: Supreme Court to Revisit the Fraud-on-the Market Presumption of Reliance Parties to pending securities fraud class actions
More informationCase3:12-mc CRB Document88 Filed10/04/13 Page1 of 5. October 4, Chevron v. Donziger, 12-mc CRB (NC) Motion to Compel
Case3:12-mc-80237-CRB Document88 Filed10/04/13 Page1 of 5 555 CALIFORNIA STREET, 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 TELEPHONE: +1.415.626.3939 FACSIMILE: +1.415.875.5700 VIA ECF United States District
More informationLatham & Watkins Finance Department
Number 1242 September 29, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Pipeline Safety Snapshot: Potential New Legislative and Regulatory Changes to Pipeline Safety Requirements Taken together,
More informationE-DISCOVERY UPDATE. October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
OCTOBER 1, 2012 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1.
More informationLitigation Strategies in Europe MIP Global IP & Innovation Summit
Litigation Strategies in Europe MIP Global IP & Innovation Summit Paul Brown, Partner, London 4 September 2013 What will this talk cover? What factors does a litigant need to consider when litigating patents
More informationOctober s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
OCTOBER 20, 2015 October s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This Sidley Update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. A Sixth Circuit ruling
More informationM&A REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS AT FERC 2016 ANNUAL REVIEW. Mark C. Williams J. Daniel Skees Heather L. Feingold December 15, 2016
M&A REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS AT FERC 2016 ANNUAL REVIEW Mark C. Williams J. Daniel Skees Heather L. Feingold December 15, 2016 2015 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Business Background M&A, Divestiture, Reorganizations,
More informationPrivate action for contempt of court?
Private action for contempt of court? May 2018 Private action for contempt of court? May 2018 1 Private action for contempt of court? Introduction In March, the UK Supreme Court handed down a landmark
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JONES DAY, ) Case No.: 08CV4572 a General Partnership, ) ) Judge John Darrah Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) BlockShopper
More informationMIP International Patent Forum 2013 Russia Focus
MIP International Patent Forum 2013 Russia Focus Natalia Gulyaeva, Partner Head of IP, Media & Technology, Hogan Lovells CIS 16 April 2013 Patents as a key to business expansion: produced in Russia Russian
More informationCase 1:18-cr DLF Document 7-1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 1 of 6 ATTACHMENT A
Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 7-1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 1 of 6 ATTACHMENT A Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 7-1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 2 of 6 Eric A. Dubelier Direct Phone: +1 202 414 9291 Email: edubelier@reedsmith.com
More informationPlaintiffs' Response to Individual Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice
Plaintiffs' Response to Individual Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice Source: Milberg Weiss Date: 11/15/01 Time: 9:36 AM MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH LLP REED R. KATHREIN (139304 LESLEY E.
More informationWhat You Need To Know About The Rise Of Civil Litigation By State Attorneys General
What You Need To Know About The Rise Of Civil Litigation By State Attorneys General This brown bag is brought to you by the Healthcare Liability and Litigation (HC Liability) Practice Group April 18, 2011
More informationFact or Fiction? U.S. Government Surveillance in a Post-Snowden World
Fact or Fiction? U.S. Government Surveillance in a Post-Snowden World Bret Cohen Hogan Lovells US LLP September 18, 2014 The Snowden effect 2 U.S. cloud perception post-snowden July 2013 survey of non-u.s.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
Clemons v. Google, Inc. Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION RICHARD CLEMONS, v. GOOGLE INC., Plaintiff, Defendant. Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-00963-AJT-TCB
More informationKinross Gold Corporation et al v. Wollant et al Doc. 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I.
Kinross Gold Corporation et al v. Wollant et al Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE KINROSS GOLD CORPORATION, a corporation, and EASTWEST GOLD CORPORATION, a corporation,
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 informationAlert Memo. The Facts
Alert Memo FEBRUARY 27, 2012 Second Circuit Holds District Court Must Mandatorily Abstain from Deciding Parmalat State Court Action Related to U.S. Ancillary Bankruptcy Proceeding Under 28 U.S.C. 1334(c)(2),
More informationTHE DISTRICT COURT CASE
Supreme Court Sets the Bar High, Requiring Knowledge or Willful Blindness to Establish Induced Infringement of a Patent, But How Will District Courts Follow? Peter J. Stern & Kathleen Vermazen Radez On
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 informationAPPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. (D.C. No. 97-CV-1620-M)
Page 1 of 5 Keyword Case Docket Date: Filed / Added (26752 bytes) (23625 bytes) PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT INTERCON, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 98-6428
More informationOctober Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
OCTOBER 25, 2013 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues:
More informationPatent Litigation in China & Amicus Curiae in the U.S. William (Skip) Fisher Partner, Shanghai. EPLAW Congress, 22 November 2013
Patent Litigation in China & Amicus Curiae in the U.S. William (Skip) Fisher Partner, Shanghai EPLAW Congress, 22 November 2013 What I will cover Considerations for patent litigation in China Anatomy of
More informationLooking Within the Scope of the Patent
Latham & Watkins Antitrust and Competition Practice Number 1540 June 25, 2013 Looking Within the Scope of the Patent The Supreme Court Holds That Settlements of Paragraph IV Litigation Are Subject to the
More informationUS securities law update.
US securities law update. In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation - landmark decision for jurisdiction under the US securities laws, or just business as usual? The recent decision in In re
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-00-cab-mdd Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, JOHN DOE..., Defendant. Case No.: -cv-0-cab-mdd ORDER DENYING
More informationBasic Upheld in Halliburton: Defendants May Rebut Price Impact
JUNE 23, 2014 SECURITIES LITIGATION UPDATE Basic Upheld in Halliburton: Defendants May Rebut Price Impact The U.S. Supreme Court this morning, in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317
More informationChallenging Government decisions in the UK. An introduction to judicial review
Challenging Government decisions in the UK An introduction to judicial review Challenging Government decisions in the UK Further information If you would like further information on any aspect of challenging
More informationRevisiting Affiliated Ute: Back In Vogue In The 9th Circ.
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 Revisiting Affiliated Ute: Back In Vogue
More informationCase 4:17-mc DMR Document 4 Filed 08/04/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-mc-000-dmr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 IN RE EX PARTE APPLICATION OF ANZ COMMODITY TRADING PTY LTD Case No. -mc-000-dmr ORDER GRANTING
More informationMarathon Oil Corporation
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Date of Report (Date of earliest event
More informationTHE FALSE CLAIMS ACT. Victor F. Luke, Esq.
THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT By: Victor F. Luke, Esq. There have been no significant changes to the law this past year. All the big news from 2013-2014 thus far has emerged from the courts. In November, 2013,
More informationWhitman v. United States: U.S. Supreme Court Considers Deference to Agencies Interpretations of Criminal Statutes
Whitman v. United States: U.S. Supreme Court Considers Deference to Agencies Interpretations of Two Justices Suggest That Agencies Interpretations Should Not Be Entitled To Deference When Considering Statutes
More informationCase 2:09-cv NBF Document 884 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 884 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, vs. Plaintiff, MARVELL TECHNOLOGY
More informationFOUR TIMES SQUARE NEW YORK TEL: (212) FAX: (212) File No. S
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP DIRECT DIAL DIRECT FAX EMAIL ADDRESS FOUR TIMES SQUARE NEW YORK 10036-6522 TEL: (212) 735-3000 FAX: (212) 735-2000 www.skadden.com F'IRM/AFF"ILIATE OFFICES BOSTON
More informationFreedom of Information Act Request: Mobile Biometric Devices and Applications
51 LOUISIANA AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001.2113 TELEPHONE: +1.202.879.3939 FACSIMILE: +1.202.626.1700 Direct Number: (202) 879-3437 smlevine@jonesday.com VIA E-MAIL: ICE-FOIA@DHS.GOV U.S. Immigration
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 01 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT P. VICTOR GONZALEZ, Qui Tam Plaintiff, on behalf of the United States
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 informationFollow this and additional works at:
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-1-2009 USA v. Gordon Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3934 Follow this and additional
More informationENTERED August 16, 2017
Case 4:16-cv-03362 Document 59 Filed in TXSD on 08/16/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION JAMES LESMEISTER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
More informationU.S. v. CANALE, Cite as 115 AFTR 2d , Code Sec(s) 6531, (DC NY), 06/17/2015. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF v. Peter CANALE, DEFENDANT.
06/17/2015 American Federal Tax Reports U.S. v. CANALE, Cite as 115 AFTR 2d 2015-2249, Code Sec(s) 6531, (DC NY), 06/17/2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF v. Peter CANALE, DEFENDANT. Case Information:
More informationSENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL
SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL CLIENT MEMORANDUM On Tuesday, March 8, the United States Senate voted 95-to-5 to adopt legislation aimed at reforming the country s patent laws. The America Invents Act
More informationNotice of Motion and Motion to Consolidate Related Actions Against
Notice of Motion and Motion to Consolidate Related Actions Against Sagent Technology, Inc. for Violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof
More informationGrasping for a Hold on Ascertainability : The Implicit Requirement for Class Certification and its Evolving Application
26 August 2015 Practice Groups: Financial Institutions and Services Litigation Commercial Disputes Consumer Financial Services Class Action Defense Global Government Solutions Grasping for a Hold on Ascertainability
More informationEmerging Trend Against Nationwide Venue In Antitrust Cases
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@law360.com Emerging Trend Against Nationwide Venue In Antitrust
More informationDefendants Look for Broader Interpretation of Halliburton II
Defendants Look for Broader Interpretation of Halliburton II June 7, 2016 Robert L. Hickok hickokr@pepperlaw.com Gay Parks Rainville rainvilleg@pepperlaw.com Reprinted with permission from the June 7,
More informationThe Seventh Circuit Undercuts Prominent Defenses in Data Breach Lawsuits and Class Actions
Class Action Litigation Alert The Seventh Circuit Undercuts Prominent Defenses in Data Breach Lawsuits and Class Actions August 2015 With two recent decisions sure to please the plaintiff s bar, the U.S.
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 informationKey Developments in U.S. Patent Law
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & TECHNOLOGY LITIGATION NEWSLETTER ISSUE 2014-1: JUNE 3, 2014 Key Developments in U.S. Patent Law In this issue: Fee Shifting Divided Infringement Patent Eligibility Definiteness
More informationThe Supreme Court Decision in Empagran
The Supreme Court Decision On June 14, 2004, the United States Supreme Court issued its much anticipated opinion in Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd. v. Empagran S.A, 2004 WL 1300131 (2004). This closely watched
More informationFebruary 6, Practice Groups: Class Action Litigation Defense; Financial Institutions and Services Litigation
February 6, 2013 Practice Groups: Class Action Litigation Defense; Financial Institutions and Services Litigation Knowing Where You Are Litigating is Half the Battle: The Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument
More informationCase 1:11-cv JDB-JMF Document 8 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:11-cv-01962-JDB-JMF Document 8 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 6 SBO PICTURES, INC., Plaintiff, DOES 1-87, Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. Civil Action No. 11-1962
More informationJudicial Review. Where do we stand? Will proposals for further judicial review reform make any difference? Procedure & Practice
Judicial Review Procedure & Practice Where do we stand? Will proposals for further judicial review reform make any difference? Charles Brasted & Ben Gaston Report Judicial Review November 2013 1 Where
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JOHN WILEY & SONS, LTD., and AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS, Plaintiffs, MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP, and JOHN DOE
More informationCase4:12-cv PJH Document22-2 Filed07/23/12 Page1 of 8. Exhibit B
Case:-cv-0-PJH Document- Filed0// Page of Exhibit B Case Case:-cv-0-PJH :-cv-0000-jls-rbb Document- Filed0// 0// Page of of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LIBERTY MEDIA
More informationU.S. Supreme Court Forecloses Non-U.S. Corporate Liability Under the Alien Torts Statute
U.S. Supreme Court Forecloses Non-U.S. Corporate Liability Under the Alien Torts Statute Non-U.S. Corporations May Not Be Sued by Non-U.S. Plaintiffs Under the Alien Torts Statute for Alleged Violations
More informationAppeals Court Resoundingly Affirms Scope and Breadth of Shipping Act Antitrust Exemption
31 January 2017 Practice Groups: Antitrust and Trade Regulation Maritime Appeals Court Resoundingly Affirms Scope and Breadth of Shipping Act By John Longstreth, Michael Scanlon, and Allen Bachman In August
More informationMultidistrict Litigation, Forum Selection and Transfer: Tips and Trends Julie M. Holloway Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP
Multidistrict Litigation, Forum Selection and Transfer: Tips and Trends Julie M. Holloway Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP Latham & Watkins operates worldwide as a limited liability partnership organized
More informationSECURITIES INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION
SECURITIES INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION Michael Delikat mdelikat@orrick.com Jill Rosenberg jrosenberg@orrick.com Lisa Lupion llupion@orrick.com ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 W 52 nd Street New
More information