On December 3, 2020, the New York State Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department dismissed an action alleging claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) in Lyu v. Ruhnn Holdings Limited....more
On October 31, 2019, Vice Chancellor Kathaleen S. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder derivative suit against the directors of LendingClub Corporation for failure to plead demand futility. In...more
On October 18, 2019, Judge Edward J. Davila of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under...more
On February 25, 2019, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute of Legal Reform (the “ILR”) published a report entitled “Containing the Contagion: Proposals to Reform the Broken Securities Class Action System” (the “Report”)....more
Last Friday's post discussed the possibility of avoiding potential liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act by relying on the Section 3(a)(10) exemption from registration. Eliminating Section 11 liability does not...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on March 20 holding that investors are free to file securities class action lawsuits challenging the veracity of stock registration statements under Section 11 of the...more
Last week in Stadnick v. Vivint Solar, the Second Circuit provided important guidance for determining when an omission in a registration statement is material for purposes of a Section 11 claim. The decision holds that the...more
Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini discussed the class action suit brought against Party City alleging the company failed to disclose material facts in SEC documents when it did not discuss the impact the decline in...more
On November 28, 2016, the First Circuit upheld the dismissal of all but one of the class action securities fraud claims against Cambridge, MA drug company, ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., reaffirming the exacting pleading...more
One year ago today, in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, 135 S.Ct. 1318 (2015), the Supreme Court created a new test for opinion liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act,...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund resolved a clear split in the federal courts of appeal regarding when statements of opinion may give...more
On March 24, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Omnicare, Inc., et al. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, et al., addressing when an issuer may be held liable for material...more
It’s Stifling in Here! SEC Rules That Companies Can’t Put Restrictive Language in Confidentiality Agreements That Could Potentially Stifle Whistleblowers - Why it matters: On April 1, 2015, the SEC announced its...more
In Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, 575 U. S. ____ (2015), the Supreme Court clarified issuer liability under §11 of the Securities Act. Section 11 provides that issuers are...more
When an Opinion May Be Considered a Statement of Fact - Overview: On March 24, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Omnicare Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, resolving a...more
In Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, No. 13-435, 2015 WL 1291916 (U.S. Mar. 24, 2015), the United States Supreme Court addressed the circumstances under which a claim alleging...more
On March 24, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided the closely followed case of Omnicare v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund concerning liability for false statements of opinion made in...more
On March 24, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund. The Court vacated the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s...more
The United States Supreme Court in Omnicare, Inc., et al. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, et al., clarified standards for liability that a company issuing securities may face through...more
The Supreme Court has a long history of rejecting expansive interpretations of implied private rights of action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. Most notably, since 1975, it rejected the argument that mere...more
Deciding this Term’s big securities case, a unanimous Supreme Court held on March 24 that a statement of opinion does not become actionable under the “untrue statement of material fact” clause of section 11 of the Securities...more
Securities issuers breathed a collective sigh of relief last week when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Omnicare Inc. et al. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund et al. that Section 11 of the...more
Statements of opinion do not constitute an “untrue statement of fact” if they turn out to be incorrect, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund,...more
Can a public company violate the federal securities laws simply by expressing an opinion that turns out to be wrong? In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit startled the business community by recognizing just...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