On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision in the case of Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., No. 22-1165. Justice Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that “pure...more
On June 21, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System,1 vacating the 2nd Circuit’s previous decision and remanding for further consideration as to...more
7/29/2021
/ Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v Goldman Sachs Group ,
Burden of Persuasion ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
Conflicts of Interest ,
Fraud-on-the-Market ,
Goldman Sachs ,
Investors ,
Presumption of Reliance ,
SCOTUS ,
Securities Exchange Act ,
Securities Litigation ,
Shareholders
Key Points -
The U.S. Supreme Court held that all members of a certified class must demonstrate that they suffered a concrete harm—such as physical injury or monetary loss—to have Article III standing to recover damages in...more
6/30/2021
/ Article III ,
Class Action ,
Class Members ,
Credit Reporting Agencies ,
Credit Reports ,
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
SCOTUS ,
Standing ,
TransUnion ,
TransUnion LLC v Ramirez
Key Points -
The Supreme Court held that a former police officer did not violate the CFAA by “exceeding” his authorized access to a law enforcement database when he used the database to sell information because he was...more
On March 29, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. In this closely watched case, the Court is expected to clarify the evidentiary burden for...more
The U.S. Supreme Court is requesting that startup hiQ Labs Inc. respond to LinkedIn’s request for intervention of a ruling in the Ninth Circuit. In its petition for writ of certiorari filed in March, LinkedIn claimed that hiQ...more
- The U.S. Supreme Court will review whether a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates the CFAA if he accesses the same information for an improper purpose.
- The Court’s...more
• The United States Supreme Court held that a disseminator of a false statement with intent to defraud can be held liable under subsections (a) and (c) of Rule 10b-5, §10(b) of the Exchange Act and §17(a)(1) of the Securities...more
4/2/2019
/ Appeals ,
Enforcement Actions ,
False Statements ,
Fines ,
Intent to Defraud ,
Investment Banks ,
Lorenzo v SEC ,
Material Dissemination ,
Misleading Statements ,
Reaffirmation ,
Rule 10b-5 ,
SCOTUS ,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ,
Securities Violations ,
Suspensions
• SEC ALJs are “Officers of the United States” within the meaning of the Appointments Clause and therefore must be appointed directly by the SEC. The Court’s decision may permit litigants in prior and pending administrative...more
6/26/2018
/ Administrative Agencies ,
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
Administrative Proceedings ,
Appeals ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Enforcement Actions ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Lucia v SEC ,
Officers of the United States ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ,
Securities Violations ,
Special Trial Judges (STJs)
• The U.S. Supreme Court held that the tolling provisions established in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) apply to only individual claims, not to successive class actions.
• The Court’s...more
6/13/2018
/ 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
• The United States Supreme Court held that certain securities class actions affecting issuer defendants may be brought in state court and may not be removed to federal court.
• The decision will likely extend or expand...more
Securities defendants can rest easier after the Supreme Court’s decision to strictly construe certain statutory time limits under the Securities Act of 1933. On June 26, 2017, the Court issued its opinion in California Public...more
7/1/2017
/ CalPERS v ANZ Securities ,
Class Action ,
Equitable Tolling ,
Opt-Outs ,
Pension Funds ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 11 ,
Section 13 ,
Securities Act ,
Securities Act of 1933 ,
Securities Fraud ,
Securities Litigation ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Statute of Repose ,
Underwriting
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Spokeo v. Robins (see our previous posts on the case and oral argument). The United States Supreme Court held that a plaintiff must show that an...more
In its first published opinion applying the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, 135 S. Ct. 1318 (2015), the 2nd Circuit has offered relief to...more
Article III of the U.S. Constitution extends the federal judicial power only to “Cases” and “Controversies.” The Supreme Court has long held that no case or controversy exists unless the party invoking federal jurisdiction...more
On July 25, 2015, Judge Barbara Lynn of the Northern District of Texas issued a formative opinion in the class actions securities arena. The case, The Erica P. John Fund, Inc., et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al., No....more
The U.S. Supreme Court found middle ground in Omnicare this week, holding that issuers’ statements of opinion issued in registration statements can be the basis for liability under Section 11 if either the speaker does not...more
Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Omnicare, Inc. v. The Laborers District Council Construction, No. 13-435 on whether securities class action plaintiffs must merely show that an opinion in a registration...more
In a preview of the issues raised in Omnicare, Inc. v. The Laborers District Council Construction, No. 13-435 (discussed here and here), the Second Circuit in Kaess v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 13-2364 (2d Cir. July 16, 2014)...more
The Petitioners in Omnicare, Inc. v. The Laborers District Council Construction, No. 13-435 came out swinging in their opening merits brief to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari earlier this year. See Brief of...more
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court saved securities class-action plaintiffs from their worst nightmare and upheld the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance in securities class actions filed under Section 10(b) of the...more
Last month, in Prousalis v. Moore (May 7, 2014), a criminal securities fraud case, the Fourth Circuit held that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Rule 10b-5(b) in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders...more
During last week’s oral argument in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317 (“Halliburton II”), the Supreme Court justices sent a strong signal that they would not overrule Basic, but may seek to strengthen...more
On November 25, the U.S. Supreme Court set oral argument for March 5, 2014, in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund (No. 13-317), a case that could significantly impact the costs of securities litigation in the United States....more