The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“Second Circuit”) recently issued an important decision concerning challenging the rejection of claims made by class members in settled U.S. class actions. Contant v. AMA...more
On November 1, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a summary order rejecting the appeal of an objector to the Foreign Exchange Antitrust Settlement. A few weeks earlier, U.S. District Court...more
In a recent ruling in In re: BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed claims asserted by opt-out plaintiffs as time barred by the Exchange Act’s statute of...more
10/10/2018
/ American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah ,
CalPERS v ANZ Securities ,
Class Action ,
Equitable Tolling ,
Institutional Investors ,
Opt-Outs ,
SCOTUS ,
Securities Act of 1933 ,
Securities Litigation ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Statute of Repose
As we previously noted in this post, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the Volkswagen Bondholder Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, with leave to amend, holding that it could...more
Former U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen, the Special Master appointed to investigate alleged improper billing by class plaintiffs’ firms in Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. State Street Bank and Trust Company,...more
7/19/2018
/ Attorney's Fees ,
Breach of Duty ,
Class Action ,
Class Members ,
Disgorgement ,
Duty of Candor ,
Failure To Disclose ,
Fee-Sharing ,
FRCP 11 ,
FRCP 23 ,
Institutional Investors ,
Recusal ,
Rules of Professional Conduct ,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ,
Special Master
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in China Agritech Inc. v. Resh, to determine whether “[u]pon denial of class certification, may a putative class member, in lieu of promptly joining an existing suit or promptly...more
6/12/2018
/ Appeals ,
China Agritech Inc v Resh ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
Class Members ,
Equitable Tolling ,
FRCP 23 ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Securities Fraud ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Subsequent Litigation
This case stems from alleged misstatement made by Volkswagen Group of America Finance (“VWGoAF”) in an Offering Memorandum governing the issuance of three sets of bonds. The bonds were offered in private placements with...more
5/25/2018
/ Bondholders ,
Bonds ,
Class Action ,
Direct Purchasers ,
Fraud-on-the-Market ,
Investors ,
Material Misstatements ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Private Placements ,
R&D ,
Rule 10(b) ,
Rule 144A ,
Scienter ,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ,
Securities Exchange Act ,
Securities Fraud ,
Volkswagen
In LBP Holdings Ltd. v Hycroft Mining Corporation, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice denied the plaintiff’s motion to certify a class action in common law negligence and negligent misrepresentation against the...more
On Tuesday, February 6, 2018, United States District Judge Jed S. Rakoff denied class counsel’s request to file under seal three supplemental agreements to a $2.95 billion settlement in the Petrobras Securities Litigation,...more
Recently, in Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v. Treasury Wine Estates Limited (“Treasury Wine”), the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia considered a primary judge’s class closure order which broke new ground in...more
The U.S. Supreme Court‘s 2017 term begins October 2nd and we will be tracking at least three cases relevant to institutional investors:
•Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund
•Digital Realty Trust v....more
9/13/2017
/ Anti-Retaliation Provisions ,
Class Action ,
Cyan Inc v Beaver Cty Emps Ret Fund ,
Digital Realty Trust Inc v Somers ,
Dodd-Frank ,
Failure To Disclose ,
Institutional Investors ,
Internal Reporting ,
Item 303 ,
Leidos Inc v Indiana Public Retirement System ,
NVIDIA ,
Regulation S-K ,
Removal ,
Rule 10(b) ,
Rule 10b-5 ,
Sarbanes-Oxley ,
SCOTUS ,
Securities Act ,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ,
Securities Fraud ,
Securities Litigation ,
SLUSA ,
State Securities Claims ,
Whistleblowers
In a 5-4 decision, issued during the final week of the its term, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the filing of a class action does not toll the three-year period provided for in Section 13 of the Securities Act of 1933....more
6/27/2017
/ CalPERS v ANZ Securities ,
Class Action ,
Equitable Tolling ,
Pension Funds ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 11 ,
Securities Act ,
Securities Act of 1933 ,
Securities Litigation ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Statute of Repose
On May 9, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) affirmed in part and reversed in part an earlier decision from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which had held that aspects of the...more
5/24/2017
/ Acquisitions ,
AIG ,
Appeals ,
Bailout ,
Breach of Duty ,
Class Action ,
Court of Federal Claims ,
Derivative Suit ,
Equity Claims ,
Exactions ,
Fiduciary Duty ,
Fifth Amendment ,
Just Compensation ,
Loans ,
NYSE ,
Opt-In ,
Preferred Shares ,
Reverse Stock Splits ,
Shareholder Votes ,
Standing ,
Takings Clause
In an April 28, 2017 ruling on a motion to dismiss in the In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation (the “Valeant Litigation”), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey addressed an...more
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Monday in CalPERS v. ANZ Securities. Previously we provided a comprehensive overview of CalPERS’s brief. In anticipation of oral arguments, below we discuss the arguments raised...more
In the long-running Halliburton securities litigation, a dispute has arisen between two rival class proponents. While readers of this blog are no doubt familiar with The Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co. case and...more
On February 27, 2017, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) filed its brief with the Supreme Court, requesting that the Court reverse the decision of the Second Circuit and abrogate the Second...more
3/25/2017
/ Amicus Briefs ,
Appeals ,
CalPERS ,
CalPERS v ANZ Securities ,
Class Action ,
Opt-Outs ,
Public Pension ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Retirement Plan ,
SCOTUS ,
Securities Act of 1933 ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Statute of Repose ,
Tolling
Recently introduced legislation pending before the U.S. House of Representatives attempts to make wide-sweeping reforms to the procedural rules governing class actions and, if implemented, could permanently alter the class...more
On November 4, 2016, Judge Keith Ellison of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted preliminary approval of a $175 million settlement in the federal securities class action In re: BP p.l.c....more
Following up on our December 15 post on the debate over the best strategy to recover foreign securities losses, a collection of Dutch Foundations (known as Stichtings) negotiated a substantial collective settlement with Ageas...more
Recently, in Lawrence E. Jaffe Pension Plan v. Household International, Inc., the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the defendants’ Rule 39 motion for appellate costs and ordered the...more
Recently, class plaintiffs moved for the preliminary approval of a $1.865 billion settlement of the Credit Default Swap Antitrust Litigation. In this case the plaintiffs alleged that, in and around 2008 and 2009, a number of...more
As we have mentioned previously, in the wake of Morrison v. National Australia Bank, securities plaintiffs are no longer able to assert claims under the U.S. securities laws to recover potential losses for transactions that...more
With the increasing barriers to successfully prosecuting a securities fraud case in the United States, including the jurisdictional limitations caused by the Morrison decision, institutional investors are sometimes now...more
7/23/2015
/ Attorney's Fees ,
Australia ,
Australian Stock Exchange ,
Class Action ,
Discovery ,
Indemnification ,
Institutional Investors ,
Jurisdiction ,
Legal Costs ,
Litigation Funding ,
Morrison v National Australia Bank ,
Securities Fraud ,
Testimony
In what amounted to a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. ___ (2014) that the presumption of reliance based on the fraud-on-the-market theory, first articulated in...more