News & Analysis as of

Halliburton Oral Argument: The Fraud-On-The-Market Theory Is “Basic”Ally A Sore Thumb

On March 5, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Halliburton v. The Erica P. John Fund. As discussed in previous blog posts, the United States Supreme Court agreed to consider Petitioner Halliburton’s argument to modify...more

Supreme Court Hears Argument in Potentially Game-Changing Securities Law Case

On March 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund. The outcome of this case may change the landscape for securities class actions. The issue in Halliburton is whether the fraud on...more

Green v. CIBC: Court Of Appeal Revisits Limitation Period For Secondary Market Securities Class Actions And Limits Common Law...

Overview - The Court of Appeal for Ontario’s recent decision in Green v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce(“Green”) is significant in two respects. First, the Court clarified the limitation period applicable to...more

Can Absence of Price Impact Defeat Class Certification? Supreme Court to Decide

Can a corporation defending against a stock fraud class action defeat class certification by using evidence that its actions had no effect on the stock’s price? In Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., Docket No....more

Bernstein Shur Business and Commercial Litigation Newsletter #36

We are proud to celebrate three years of the Bernstein Shur Business and Commercial Litigation Newsletter with this 36th edition. This month, we highlight developments in the following areas, which are likely to have an...more

Halliburton: Is the Fix as Basic as Alleging Omissions under Affiliated Ute? Or Is That Too Cute?

Even the most experienced securities defense attorneys regularly summarize Rule 10b-5(b) as creating a cause of action for “false or misleading statements and omissions of material fact.” Courts –including the Supreme Court...more

California Lawyer 2014 Roundtable Series: Securities

Executive Summary - In private securities litigation, all eyes are on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing set for March on Halliburton Co.’s appeal challenging the longstanding fraud on-the-market doctrine, which underlies...more

U.S. Supreme Court to Reconsider "Fraud-on-the-Market" Presumption in Securities Fraud Class Actions

On November 15, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would revisit the "fraud-on-the-market" presumption that it adopted 25 years ago, which substantially expanded securities fraud class actions. The appeal in which...more

Will Securities Fraud Class Actions Fade Into History?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, No. 13-317, suggests a dramatic change in private securities litigation is possible. On November 15, 2013, the Court accepted...more

Supreme Court to Revisit the Plaintiff-Friendly “Fraud-on-the-Market” Presumption in Securities Fraud Class Actions

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide a case this term that could significantly affect the viability of securities fraud class actions against public companies. The case, Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., will...more

Is the United States Supreme Court Poised to Overrule or Modify Basic Inc. v. Levinson?

On November 15, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari to Petitioner Halliburton Company (“Halliburton”) in the case entitled Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., f/k/a Archdiocese of...more

Not So Basic Supreme Court to Revisit the Fraud-­on-­the Market Presumption of Reliance

Parties to pending securities fraud class actions may adjust litigation strategies, even before the Court revisits Basic’s presumption of investor reliance. On Friday, November 15, 2013, the Supreme Court granted...more

Basic Is Anything But: Courts Continue to Wrangle with the Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption

It has been 25 years since the Supreme Court announced the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988). Yet many courts, including the Supreme Court itself, continue to struggle...more

Second Take on Amgen: Defense Arguments Largely Intact, Even in Overruled Circuits

In our post in the immediate wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans, we concluded that rather than being a new threat to the defense of securities class actions, Amgen basically...more

Supreme Court's Decision Reshapes Class Certification for Future Securities Class Actions

On February 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a long-standing circuit split on the issue of whether, when bringing a securities fraud class action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, a...more

The Material Impact of the Amgen Decision on D&O Insurance

In Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, No. 11-1085 (Slip Op. Feb. 27, 2013), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 majority opinion (Ginsburg, J.), affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s...more

United States Supreme Court Holds that Class Action Securities Fraud Plaintiffs Need Not Prove the Materiality of the Alleged...

In Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, No. 11-1085, ___ WL ______ (U.S. Feb. 27, 2013), the United States Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit...more

Life Sciences Companies Should Protect Themselves Against Increased Exposure to Costly Securities Fraud Lawsuits After Supreme...

What you need to know: The Supreme Court recently found that defendants in class action securities fraud lawsuits will not be able to challenge the materiality of allegedly fraudulent misstatements or omissions at the...more

Supreme Court Decides AMGEN – Allows Plaintiff Class to be Certified Without Separate Materiality Inquiry

On February 27, 2013, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, No. 11-1085 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2013). In a six to three decision, the Court held that plaintiffs...more

Plausible Allegations – Not Proof – Of Materiality All That’s Required For Class Certification in Securities Fraud Suits, Says...

In its ruling on February 27, in Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds (No. 11-1085), the first of several highly anticipated class action decisions that impact securities class action litigation going...more

Supreme Court Update: Two Securities Law Decisions This Week, and Another to Come

The United States Supreme Court has taken a keen interest in the securities arena this current term, agreeing to hear at least three cases (of only approximately 70 in total). This week, the Supreme Court announced decisions...more

Materiality Can Wait, Says the Supreme Court in Amgen

The following post is reprinted with permission from Paul Karlsgodt’s blog, www.classactionblawg.com. The Supreme Court has issued its opinion in one of the most highly anticipated class action-related cases on the...more

First Take on Amgen Decision: Supreme Court “Basically” Endorses Status Quo

The Supreme Court released its anxiously awaited decision in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans yesterday. On the face of the decision, it was a loss for defendants in that case, and for companies everywhere that are...more

Supreme Court Holds That Securities Fraud Plaintiffs Do Not Have to Prove Materiality to Certify a Class

The Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated decision today in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, No. 11-1085, 568 U.S. __ (2013), affirming the Ninth Circuit and holding that securities class action...more

Legal Alert: Supreme Court Decides Materiality Need Not Be Demonstrated for Class Certification

This morning the United States Supreme Court affirmed class certification in Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds , a securities fraud case. The question presented was whether plaintiffs seeking class...more

27 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2