Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Securities Litigation and Professional Liability Practice
|
|
- Florence Hodges
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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 about the circumstances in which irrevocable liability is incurred, or title transferred, in the United States. Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Securities Litigation and Professional Liability Practice Second Circuit Provides Guidance on What Constitutes Domestic Securities Transactions for Section 10(b) Liability In 2010, the US Supreme Court held in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. that Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 only applies to transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges and domestic transactions in other securities. 1 That decision rejected the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit s longstanding conduct and effects tests, and sparked wide-ranging discussion regarding what would happen relative to securities transactions that are at least partially extraterritorial. Now the Second Circuit has weighed in on the discussion. In Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Todd M. Ficeto, the Second Circuit provided guidance for the first time on the application of the phrase domestic transactions in other securities, holding that a domestic transaction occurs if irrevocable liability was incurred or title was transferred within the United States. 2 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 about the circumstances in which irrevocable liability is incurred, or title transferred, in the United States. This Client Alert considers the Second Circuit s new standard, and explores the effect of the new standard on future cases. Background Plaintiffs in Absolute Activist were foreign hedge funds that invested on behalf of investors around the world, including in the United States. Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants plaintiffs investment manager (Absolute Capital Management Holdings Limited (ACM)), certain officers of ACM, plaintiffs US-based broker-dealer (Hunter World Markets, Inc. (Hunter)) and certain principals of Hunter engaged in a classic pump-and-dump scheme that caused plaintiffs to suffer losses of at least US$195 million through fraudulent trading of securities. 3 As alleged, defendants caused plaintiffs to purchase billions of shares of thinlycapitalized US-based companies (referred to by the Second Circuit as the US Penny Stock Companies ) in subscriptions pursuant to private investment in public equity (PIPE) transactions, and later artificially inflated the prices of those stocks by trading and re-trading the stocks between the plaintiff hedge funds, creating the illusion of trading volume. 4 At the time of those purchases, certain of the defendants already held in their own name, or otherwise controlled, substantial amounts of shares and warrants from the US Penny Stock Companies. Some defendants even Latham & Watkins operates worldwide as a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware (USA) with affiliated limited liability partnerships conducting the practice in the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Singapore and as affiliated partnerships conducting the practice in Hong Kong and Japan. Latham & Watkins practices in Saudi Arabia in association with the Law Office of Mohammed A. Al-Sheikh. In Qatar, Latham & Watkins LLP is licensed by the Qatar Financial Centre Authority. 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 2012 Latham & Watkins. All Rights Reserved.
2 received shares and warrants from the US Penny Stock Companies for causing plaintiffs to purchase their shares. Once the prices of the stocks were manipulated to desired levels, the defendants were able to sell their own shares to plaintiffs (their clients) at inflated prices. Finally, Hunter and its principals allegedly were able to generate substantial commissions through their role as placement agents for the PIPE transactions. 5 In the fall of 2009, plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of, alleging claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as associated common law claims. On the day after argument on defendants motion to dismiss the complaint, the US Supreme Court released its decision in Morrison. Thereafter, the District Court sua sponte dismissed plaintiffs complaint in its entirety, ruling that under Morrison it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case because the complaint failed to allege sufficiently the existence of domestic securities transactions. 6 Morrison and the Scope of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act makes it unlawful [t]o use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security... any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors. 7 Rule 10b-5 provides that it is unlawful... to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, [or] to make any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact... or to engage in any act, practice or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. 8 Prior to the Supreme Court s decision in Morrison, the Second Circuit, along with most other circuits, applied the conduct and effect tests for determining the extraterritorial application of Section 10(b). 9 The conduct test considered whether the wrongful conduct occurred in the United States, and the effects test considered whether the wrongful conduct had a substantial effect in the United States or upon United States citizens. 10 The Second Circuit generally declined to keep [those] two tests distinct on the ground that an admixture or combination of the two often gives a better picture of whether there is sufficient United States involvement to justify the exercise of jurisdiction by an American court. 11 In Morrison, the Supreme Court struck down the conduct and effects tests as extra-textual extensions of Section 10(b), holding that Section 10(b) applies only to purchases and sales of securities in the United States. 12 The Court established a transactional test for determining applicability of Section 10(b), holding that it applies only [to] transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges, and domestic transactions in other securities. 13 The Morrison opinion, however, provided little guidance as to what the phrase domestic transactions in other securities means in practice. The Second Circuit s Decision in Absolute Activist Drawing upon definitions of the terms purchase and sale, and prior case law interpreting Morrison, the Second Circuit held in Absolute Activist that for a plaintiff to allege a domestic securities transaction sufficiently, the plaintiff must allege facts suggesting that irrevocable liability was incurred or title was transferred within the United States. 14 The Court affirmed dismissal of the complaint, holding that plaintiffs mere allegation that the 2 Number 1312 April 4, 2012
3 transactions carried out through [the broker-dealer] took place in the United States was insufficient to allege a domestic securities transaction. 15 The Court also held that plaintiffs remaining allegations failed to satisfy the new standard. Of particular note, the Court rejected plaintiffs allegation that certain defendants who resided in the United States were involved[] in the offerings of the US Penny Stock Companies, or otherwise carried out fraudulent activities in the United States, noting that such allegations did not sufficiently allege that the transactions themselves took place in the United States. 16 Questions Unresolved by Absolute Activist By holding that plaintiffs must plead facts supporting a plausible inference that irrevocable liability for the sale or purchase of a security was incurred in the United States (whether that security was issued in the United States or a foreign country), or that the title of that security was transferred within the United States, Absolute Activist provides needed guidance as to what constitutes a domestic securities transaction in securities not listed on a domestic exchange. 17 Absent sufficient allegations in this regard, Section 10(b) claims within the Second Circuit will be dismissed. 18 However, the day-to-day application of the new standard in a 21st-century trading environment may prove difficult without further guidance from courts. For instance, when one party to a securities transaction is present within the United States, and the counterparty is present outside the US, it is not immediately clear how a court would determine whether liability was incurred, or title transferred, within the United States. Further complications may arise when the presence of brokers or other intermediaries are considered. Moreover, most securities transactions today are conducted electronically, which adds a layer of complexity to the determination of the location of the seller, broker, holder and/or purchaser. The complexity of the issue is compounded by questions of when liability becomes irrevocable e.g., it could mean at the time an offer and acceptance is made, the time the security is delivered to the purchaser (or intermediary), when payment is sent (or received), when liability accrues under GAAP, or otherwise. Of course, when liability is incurred can affect where it is incurred. In Absolute Activist, the Second Circuit suggests in dicta that one of the ways litigants could deal with these uncertainties is for plaintiffs to plead facts concerning the formation of the contracts, the placement of purchase orders, the passing of title, or the exchange of money within the United States. 19 Further monitoring will be necessary to determine how plaintiffs will handle this suggestion in their complaints and amended complaints. Depending on the nature of any such allegations, defendants may argue in motions to dismiss that such allegations merely attempt to resurrect the nowabrogated conduct test, which required a plaintiff to allege that the wrongful conduct occurred in the United States. 20 Pleading such facts the location of the formation of contracts, the time and place of monetary exchanges, etc. was a staple of pre-morrison complaints, whenever the domestic nature of the securities exchange at issue was in dispute. Conclusion While Absolute Activist creates a fixed standard for courts to consider when assessing whether a plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a domestic transaction in securities, it remains to be seen how this new standard whether irrevocable liability was incurred or title was transferred within the United States will be applied in practice. 3 Number 1312 April 4, 2012
4 While a small handful of cases post- Morrison applied the irrevocable liability standard even before Absolute Activist, 21 the questions raised in this Client Alert were left unanswered in those cases. A fundamental question is likely to surface in the wake of Absolute Activist: If plaintiffs now must plead facts regarding the locus of the contracting process between the issuer and purchasers (or secondary holders and purchasers), does this effectively come back full circle to the conduct test? How plaintiffs respond to the dicta in Absolute Activist will need to be squared with the Supreme Court s holding in Morrison rejecting that test. Endnotes 1 Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869, 2884 (2010). 2 Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd., et al. v. Todd M. Ficeto, et al., ---F.3d---, 2012 WL , at *1 (2d Cir. Mar. 1, 2012). 3 Id. at * Id. at *2. 5 Id. at * Id. at * U.S.C. 78j(b) C.F.R b S.Ct. at 2889 (Stevens, J., concurring). 10 Id. at 2879 (citing S.E.C. v. Berger, 322 F.3d 187, (2d Cir. 2003)). 11 Id. (citing Itoba Ltd. v. Lep Group PLC, 54 F.3d 118, 122 (1995)). 12 Id. at 2884 ( Those purchase-and-sale transactions are the objects of the statute s solicitude. It is those transactions that the statute seeks to regulate. (citation omitted)). 13 Id. 14 Absolute Activist, 2012 WL , at *6 (emphasis added). 15 Id. at *8. 16 Id. at * Id. at *6. 18 As the Second Circuit made clear, this is a merits question, not a subject matter jurisdiction question. Id. at *5. 19 Id. at *8. 20 Morrison, 130 S.Ct. at See Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master) v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 798 F. Supp. 2d 533, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ( to state a claim under Section 10(b), a plaintiff must allege that the parties incurred irrevocable liability to purchase or sell the security in the United States ; plaintiff s mere allegation that it agreed to purchase securities from defendant fails to provide sufficient facts that allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the purchase or sale was made in the United States. ); S.E.C. v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 790 F. Supp. 2d 147, (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (SEC tacitly concedes that none of the US-based conduct it describes alleges that any party incurred irrevocable liability in the United States ); Plumbers Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund v. Swiss Reins. Co., 753 F. Supp. 2d 166, 178 (S.D.N.Y 2010) ( plaintiff never asserts that its order was irrevocable when placed ; purchase order in the United States for a security that is sold on a foreign exchange is insufficient to subject the purchase to the coverage of section 10(b) of the Exchange Act ). If you have any questions about this Client Alert, please contact one of the authors listed below or the Latham attorney with whom you normally consult: Robert J. Malionek robert.malionek@lw.com H. Gregory Baker gregory.baker@lw.com John D. Castiglione john.castiglione@lw.com 4 Number 1312 April 4, 2012
5 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 attorney with whom you normally consult. A complete list of our Client Alerts can be found on our website 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. Abu Dhabi Barcelona Beijing Boston Brussels Chicago Doha Dubai Frankfurt Hamburg Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Madrid Milan Moscow Munich New Jersey Orange County Paris Riyadh* Rome San Diego San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Tokyo Washington, D.C. * In association with the Law Office of Mohammed A. Al-Sheikh 5 Number 1312 April 4, 2012
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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationAlert Memo. I. Background
Alert Memo NEW YORK JUNE 25, 2010 U.S. Supreme Court Limits Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act to Security Transactions Made on Domestic Exchanges or in the United States On June 24, 2010, the
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 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 informationLorenzo v. SEC Supreme Court Issues Decision on Scheme Liability Under Rule 10b-5
Lorenzo v. SEC Supreme Court Issues Decision on Scheme Liability Under Rule 10b-5 U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Defendants Can Be Held Primarily Liable for Securities Scheme Fraud for Knowingly Disseminating
More informationSovereign Immunity. Key points for commercial parties July allenovery.com
Sovereign Immunity Key points for commercial parties July 2018 2 Sovereign Immunity Key points for commercial parties July 2018 Allen & Overy LLP 2018 3 Introduction Sovereign immunity is a complex topic.
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 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 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 informationMOVING EMPLOYEES GLOBALLY:
MANAGING THE GLOBAL WORKFORCE WEBINAR SERIES MOVING EMPLOYEES GLOBALLY: STRATEGIES FOR NAVIGATING COMMON CHALLENGES Nicholas Hobson Rebecca Kelly K. Lesli Ligorner Eleanor Pelta June 6, 2018 2018 Morgan,
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 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 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 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 informationA Short Guide to the Prosecution of Market Manipulation in the Energy Industry: CFTC, FERC, and FTC
JULY 2008, RELEASE TWO A Short Guide to the Prosecution of Market Manipulation in the Energy Industry: CFTC, FERC, and FTC Layne Kruse and Amy Garzon Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. A Short Guide to the Prosecution
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 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 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 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 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 3:11-cv JBA Document 200 Filed 05/13/11 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:11-cv-00078-JBA Document 200 Filed 05/13/11 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 11-cv-78 (JBA v. FRANCISCO
More informationU.S. Supreme Court Holds American Pipe Does Not Permit Repeat Filing of Class Claims After Limitations Period
Corporate and Securities Litigation JUNE 13, 2018 For more information, contact: Michael R. Smith +1 404 572 4824 mrsmith@kslaw.com B. Warren Pope +1 404 572 4897 wpope@kslaw.com Benjamin Lee +1 404 572
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 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 informationChina's New Exit-Entry Law Targets Illegal Foreigners July 2012
China's New Exit-Entry Law Targets Illegal Foreigners July 2012 Further information If you would like further information on any aspect of the alert please contact a person mentioned below or the person
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 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 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 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 informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 532 U. S. (2001) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationEEA and Swiss national. Children and their rights to British citizenship
EEA and Swiss national Children and their rights to British citizenship April 2019 Please note: The information set out here does not cover all the circumstances in which a child born to a European Economic
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 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 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 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 informationDelaware Chancery Court Confirms the Invalidity of Fee-Shifting Bylaws for Stock Corporations
4 January 2017 Practice Group(s): Corporate/M&A Delaware Chancery Court Confirms the Invalidity of Fee-Shifting Bylaws for By Lisa R. Stark and Taylor B. Bartholomew In Solak v. Sarowitz, C.A. No. 12299-CB
More information340B Update: HRSA Finalizes 340B Pricing & Penalties for Drug Manufacturers
18 January 2017 Practice Group: Health Care 340B Update: HRSA Finalizes 340B Pricing & Penalties for Drug Manufacturers By Richard P. Church, Michael H. Hinckle, Ryan J. Severson On January 5, 2017, the
More informationEnforcing International Arbitral Awards in the UAE and The DIFC Courts: A conduit jurisdiction
Enforcing International Arbitral Awards in the UAE and The DIFC Courts: A conduit jurisdiction Simon Roderick Yacine Francis April 2016 www.allenovery.com 2 Meeting you today Simon Roderick Partner Dubai
More informationCorporate Governance Reforms and Proposed Amendments to NYSE Governance Disclosures. Contacts.
View this email as a webpage. September 2009 www.ssd.com Corporate Governance Reforms and Proposed Amendments to NYSE Governance Disclosures Several recent corporate governance reforms including the August
More informationSecurity of Payment Legislation and Set-Off Under Commonwealth Insolvency Laws
1 April 2015 Practice Group(s): Energy & Infrastructure Projects and Transactions Real Estate Restructuring and Insolvency Security of Payment Legislation and Set-Off Under Commonwealth Australia Energy,
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 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 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 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 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 informationCase 3:16-cv EMC Document 311 Filed 02/12/18 Page 1 of 7
Case :-cv-0-emc Document Filed 0// Page of JINA L. CHOI (N.Y. Bar No. ) JOHN S. YUN (Cal. Bar No. 0) yunj@sec.gov MARC D. KATZ (Cal. Bar No. ) katzma@sec.gov JESSICA W. CHAN (Cal. Bar No. ) chanjes@sec.gov
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 informationWith our compliments. By Yury Kapgan, Shanaira Udwadia, and Brandon Crase
Article Reprint With our compliments The Law of Patent Damages: Who Will Have the Final Say? By Yury Kapgan, Shanaira Udwadia, and Brandon Crase Reprinted from Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal
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 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 informationALI-ABA Course of Study Regulation D Offerings and Private Placements
381 ALI-ABA Course of Study Regulation D Offerings and Private Placements Cosponsored by the Securities Law Section of the Federal Bar Association March 15-17, 2012 Scottsdale, Arizona Due Diligence in
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 informationDamages United Kingdom perspective
Damages United Kingdom perspective Laura Whiting Young EPLAW Congress Brussels - 28 April 2014 Statutory basis Patents Act 1977, s 61(1) " civil proceedings may be brought in the court by the proprietor
More informationSUMMARY. August 27, 2018
United States v. Hoskins Second Circuit Rejects DOJ s Attempt to Expand the Extraterritorial Reach of the FCPA Through Conspiracy and Complicity Doctrines U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Holds
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 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 informationIs Inter Partes Review Set for Supreme Court Review?
October 16, 2015 Practice Groups: Patent Office Litigation IP Procurement and Portfolio Managemnet IP Litigation Is Inter Partes Review Set for Supreme Court Review? By Mark G. Knedeisen and Mark R. Leslie
More informationBackground. 21 August Practice Group: Public Policy and Law. By Raymond P. Pepe
21 August 2014 Practice Group: Public Policy and Law Permanent Injunction of Pennsylvania s Prohibition against Establishment of Political Committees to Receive Contributions of Corporate and Labor Union
More informationA DEVELOPMENT IN INSIDER TRADING LAW IN THE UNITED STATES: A CASE NOTE ON CHIARELLA v. UNITED STATES DOUGLAS W. HAWES *
Journal of Comparative Corporate Law and Securities Regulation 3 (1981) 193-197 193 North-Holland Publishing Company A DEVELOPMENT IN INSIDER TRADING LAW IN THE UNITED STATES: A CASE NOTE ON CHIARELLA
More informationBusiness Immigration. Brexit and the EU Settlement Scheme. December 2018
Business Immigration Brexit and the EU Settlement Scheme December 2018 Foreword Brexit will have a major impact on EU nationals and their family members in the UK. The Government has introduced a plan
More informationSUMMARY. June 14, 2018
Schneiderman v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC: New York Court of Appeals Holds That Martin Act Claims Are Governed by Three-Year Statute of Limitations Decision Overrules 26-Year-Old Appellate Division
More informationAIPLA Overview of recent developments in Community trade mark law
AIPLA Overview of recent developments in Community trade mark law Marie-Aimée de Dampierre, Partner 2 May 2013 IPMT / Paris Overview Trade mark registration general principles Earlier rights Distinctiveness
More informationNinth Circuit Holds That Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act Requires a Showing of Mere Negligence, Not Scienter
Ninth Circuit Holds That Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act Requires a Showing of Mere Negligence, Not Scienter May 8, 2018 In Varjabedian v. Emulex, the Ninth Circuit recently held that plaintiffs bringing
More informationRisk and Return. Foreign Direct Investment and the Rule of Law. Briefing Note
Risk and Return Foreign Direct Investment and the Rule of Law Briefing Note Risk and Return Foreign Direct Investment and the Rule of Law 3 Briefing Note Background and objectives The Economist Intelligence
More informationThe Challenges For CEA Price Manipulation Plaintiffs
The Challenges For CEA Price Manipulation Plaintiffs By Mark Young, Jonathan Marcus, Gary Rubin and Theodore Kneller, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP Law360, New York (April 26, 2017, 5:23 PM EDT)
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 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 informationAlert Memo. New York Court of Appeals Reaffirms In Pari Delicto Defense for Outside Professionals
Alert Memo NOVEMBER 5, 2010 New York Court of Appeals Reaffirms In Pari Delicto Defense for Outside Professionals When corporate fraud or other misdeeds are disclosed, investment banks, auditors and other
More information