Section 25401 of the Corporations Code is California's securities fraud statute. Readers of this space will know that that scienter was not required under the former version of the statute but that the legislature rewrote...more
Establishing personal jurisdiction may seem mundane, but without it a plaintiff may soon find itself out of court, as did the plaintiff in Marshall v. Galvanoni, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185530....more
In May, I wrote about Judge Gonzolo P. Curiel’s decision to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss federal and state securities law claims in Mueller v. San Diego Entm’t Partners, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77643 (S.D. Cal....more
A recent California Court of Appeal decision is a helpful reminder that buyers can also be targets of securities fraud suits. In Goldsholle v. Brisco, 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7997 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Nov. 6, 2014), the...more
Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provides: “The district courts of the United States . . . shall have exclusive jurisdiction of violations of [the Exchange Act] or the rules and regulations thereunder,...more
In prior posts, I’ve cast a jaundiced eye on last year’s amendment of California’s general securities fraud statute, Corporations Code Section 25401. See Die Verwandlung: How The Legislature Likely Raised The Bar On...more