A unanimous Supreme Court has confirmed that a claim brought under section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act") requires that a plaintiff plead and prove that the shares purchased were issued pursuant to an allegedly...more
In Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani, No. 22-200, 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2301 (U.S. June 1, 2023), the Supreme Court of the United States (Gorsuch, J.) held that Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), 15...more
The unanimous opinion requires shareholder plaintiffs to plead and prove that they purchased shares traceable to an allegedly false or misleading registration statement. On June 1, 2023, the US Supreme Court issued its...more
The U.S. Supreme Court held that purchasers of shares sold to the public through a direct listing cannot sue under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 unless they can trace their shares to an allegedly defective...more
The US Supreme Court recently agreed to hear an important appeal of a US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision interpreting Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 in the context of a direct stock...more
On September 20, 2021, in Pirani v. Slack Technologies, Inc., a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that investors who purchase stock in a “direct listing”—in which pre-existing shares are...more
This issue includes summaries and associated court opinions of selected cases principally decided between October 2019 and January 2020. ...more
Section 11 of the Securities Act is an anti-fraud statute. Like its Exchange Act cousin, Section 10(b), Section 11 requires (i) an omission or misrepresentation, and (2) that the omission or misrepresentation be material,...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 September 26, 2019, Justice Saliann Scarpulla of the New York State Supreme Court, County of New York, Commercial Division, dismissed a putative class action against a dental products and services company and certain of...more
Lenders and other constituencies will under certain circumstances request and be granted “board observer” rights pursuant to a loan agreement or other contract. The potential legal liability of board observers under various...more
The Third Circuit recently issued an important decision for private fund advisors who serve on corporate boards. In a precedential decision on a matter of first impression, the Third Circuit distinguished the role of...more
On July 11, 2019, Justice Andrew Borrok of the New York State Supreme Court, County of New York, Commercial Division, dismissed a putative securities class action against a Brazilian based online retailer (the “Company”),...more
Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini provided insight on a case brought by investors alleging a company violated certain securities laws by issuing a false registration statement in conjunction with its IPO. In the...more
An SEC comment letter exchange recently made public serves as a helpful reminder to consider Section 5 of the Securities Act when structuring a PIPE (private investments in public equity) transaction. In a PIPE, a public...more
Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini analyzed this putative class action brought against Match Group for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 related to the company’s 2015 initial public offering (IPO)....more
John Jenkins at DealLawyers.com recently wrote about Section 11 claims being filed in state court by purchasers in stock-for-stock mergers. Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 authorizes a cause of action against...more
In Stadnick v. Vivint Solar, Inc., 2017 WL 2661597 (2d Cir. June 21, 2017), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims for violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of...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
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
In the spring of this year, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, 135 S.Ct. 1318 (2015), resolving a circuit split regarding the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court in March provided important guidance on the support required for expressions of opinion or belief in registration statements. In Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension...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