In This Issue:

- AUDITOR LIABILITY: Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd., No. 11-mc-512 (D.D.C. Apr. 22, 2013)

- CONFIDENTIAL WITNESSES: Fort Worth Emps. Ret. Fund v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 09 Civ. 3701 (JPO)(JCF) (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2013)

- DERIVATIVE LITIGATION/BOOKS AND RECORDS: City of Roseville Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Kid Brands, No. 11-2919 (JLL) (D.N.J. Nov. 8, 2012)

- DIRECTORS AND DIRECTORS’ DUTIES:

..Bylaws. Boilermakers Local 154 Ret. Fund v. Chevron Corp., Nos. 7220-CS, 7238-CS (Del. Ch. June 25, 2013)

..Mergers and Acquisitions. In re Morton’s Rest. Grp., Inc. S’holders Litig., No. 7122-CS (Del. Ch. July 23, 2013)

..In re MFW S’holders Litig., No. 6566-CS (Del. Ch. May 29, 2013)

..Koehler v. NetSpend Holdings Inc., No. 8373-VCG (Del. Ch. May 21, 2013)

- DODD-FRANK/WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION: Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C., No. 12-20522 (5th Cir. July 17, 2013)

- DUTY TO DISCLOSE: Rescue Mission of El Paso, Inc. v. K-Sea Transp. Partners L.P., No. 12-cv-00509 (WHW) (D.N.J. June 14, 2013)

- ERISA: Harris v. Amgen, Inc., No. 10-56014 (9th Cir. June 4, 2013)

- INSIDER TRADING CLAIMS: McDaniel v. Wells Fargo Invs., LLC, Nos. 11-17017, 11-55859, 11-55943, 11-55958 (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2013)

- LOSS CAUSATION:

..Mass. Ret. Sys. v. CVS Caremark Corp., No. 12-1900 (1st Cir. May 24, 2013)

..Meyer v. Greene, No. 12-11488 (11th Cir. Feb. 25, 2013)

- MISREPRESENTATIONS: In re Anadarko Petroleum Corp. Class Action Litig., No. 4:12-cv-0900 (S.D. Tex. July 15, 2013)

- MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES: Shailja Gandhi, Revocable Trust v. Sitara Capital Mgmt., LLC, No. 12-3105 (7th Cir. July 9, 2013)

- SCIENTER: Pub. Pension Fund Grp. v. KV Pharm. Co., No. 4:08-CV-1859 (CEJ) (E.D. Mo. Apr. 30, 2013)

- SEC ENFORCEMENT:

..Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Wyly, No. 10 Civ. 5760(SAS) (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2013)

..Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Tourre, No. 10 Civ. 3229(KBF) (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2013)

..Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Schooler, No. 3:12-cv-2164-GPC-JMA (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2013)

..Saad v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, No. 10-1195 (D.C. Cir. June 11, 2013)

- SECURITIES ACT CLAIMS: Ind. State Dist. Council of Laborers & Hod Carriers Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., No. 12-5287 (6th Cir. May 23, 2013)

- SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT DISCLOSURES: Cucinotta v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, No. 58727 (Nev. May 30, 2013)

- SECURITIES FRAUD PLEADING STANDARDS:

..In re Fannie Mae 2008 Sec. Litig., No. 12-3859 (2d Cir. May 15, 2013)

..Gusinsky v. Barclays PLC, No. 12 Civ. 5329(SAS) (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2013)

..Sec. Police & Fire Prof’l of Am. Ret. Fund v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 10-cv-3105 (SDW)(MCA) (D.N.J. Apr. 22, 2013)

- SLUSA PREEMPTION: Holtz v. J.P. Morgan Sec. LLC, No. 12-cv-7080 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2013)

- STATUTES OF REPOSE:

..Police & Fire Ret. Sys. of the City of Detroit v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., Nos. 11-2998-cv(L), 11-3036-cv(CON) (2d Cir. June 27, 2013)

..Arco Capital Corps. Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 12 Civ. 7270 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2013)

- Excerpt from Auditor Liability:

District of Columbia Lifts Stay on SEC Action Seeking to Enforce Subpoena for Audit Work-Papers Regarding US-listed Chinese Foreign Issuer:

Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the SEC’s motion to lift the stay on an action seeking to enforce a subpoena for Deloitte’s audit workpapers in connection with an ongoing SEC investigation into a U.S.-listed Chinese company. The action was previously stayed in light of a SEC administrative proceeding occurring in parallel and seeking to bar five accounting firms — including a China-based member audit firm of Deloitte — from practicing in front of the SEC. At issue in both proceedings is a refusal to produce audit work-papers to the SEC on the grounds that, under Chinese law, doing so would expose the firm to criminal liability in China. However, the Court held that Deloitte was unable to show that lifting the stay would cause substantial hardship or inequity — even though the subject of both proceedings overlapped to a certain extent — because (1) the proceedings sought different remedies, (2) the SEC’s purported statutory basis for the two actions were different, and (3) both the administrative decision and the court’s ruling on the subpoena would be appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, eliminating the risk of inconsistent rulings.