Securities Fraud, SCOTUS | JD Supra Law News

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

by Claire Davis | Lane Powell PC - Securities / D&O Discourse on 3/29/2013

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

Gabelli v. SEC: The Supreme Court Limits the Statute of Limitations for SEC Actions

by Andrea Cortland, Angelo Savino | Cozen O'Connor on 3/20/2013

In a recent unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has five years from the date when an alleged fraud begins – not from the date when the SEC uncovers the fraud – to...more

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

by Michael D. Redondo | Holland & Knight LLP on 3/19/2013

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

Supreme Court Denies SEC Extra Time to Bring Enforcement Actions for Civil Penalties

by Tenley Mochizuki, Bruce Sabados | Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP on 3/13/2013

The US Supreme Court recently held that the Securities and Exchange Commission has five years from the date an alleged fraud occurs, not from the date of its discovery, to bring an enforcement action for civil penalties....more

Supreme Court Eases Burden for Securities Class Action Plaintiffs

by Kyle Sawicki, Ashley Bruce Trehan | Fowler White Boggs P.A. on 3/12/2013

The U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected the need for plaintiffs to prove materiality at the class certification stage in federal securities fraud class actions, thus allowing shareholders of Amgen to proceed as a class in a...more

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

by Matthew Klebanoff, Angelo Savino | Cozen O'Connor on 3/8/2013

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...

by Steven Kramer, John M. Landry, John Stigi | Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on 3/8/2013

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...

by William Asher, Jr., Michael Dube, Michael Gass, Stuart Glass, Brenda Jarrell, PhD., Gerald Quirk | Choate Hall & Stewart LLP on 3/7/2013

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

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

by Thomas Levinson, Sarah Wolff | Reed Smith on 3/1/2013

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

by Jeffrey Cook, Brian Miller | Akerman Senterfitt on 3/1/2013

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

Use It or Lose It: U.S. Supreme Court Holds the SEC Must Bring Civil Enforcement Actions Within Five Years of Wrongful Conduct

by Eric Breslin, Melissa Geller, Marvin G. Pickholz, Mauro Wolfe | Duane Morris LLP on 3/1/2013

On February 27, 2013, the United States Supreme Court put a stop to the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) practice of bringing civil enforcement actions outside the five-year statute of limitations. In an opinion by...more

Shareholder Plaintiffs Score A Class Certification Win From SCOTUS

by Robert Cohen, Lori Lynn Phillips, Danielle Van Wert | Orrick - Securities Litigation and Regulatory... on 3/1/2013

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court handed a win to plaintiffs in securities fraud class...more

Supreme Court Knocks Out Last Prop of OSHA Rule on Statute of Limitations

by James Lastowka, Arthur Sapper | McDermott Will & Emery on 3/1/2013

On February 27, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States in Gabelli v. SEC unanimously disapproved of the so-called discovery rule for postponing the running of a statute of limitations when a federal government agency...more

Supreme Court Rules SEC Has Five Years to Seek Penalties

by Fredric Firestone, Eugene Goldman, Michael Ungar | McDermott Will & Emery on 3/1/2013

In an important decision, the Supreme Court held that the SEC has five years from when a fraud occurred to file an action to seek civil penalties. Although the ruling was limited to civil penalties, the decision might prompt...more

Supreme Court Adopts Strict Interpretation of the Statute of Limitations for SEC Civil Penalty Enforcement Actions

by Ropes & Gray LLP on 3/1/2013

On February 27, 2013, the United States Supreme Court unanimously adopted a strict interpretation of the five-year period in which the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) may seek to impose a civil penalty on a...more

Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans And Trust Funds: Does Supreme Court Put “Cart Before The Horse” To Satisfy Predominance...

by Joshua E. Roberts | Carlton Fields on 2/28/2013

To best understand this decision, we need to look at the rules concerning both class actions and securities: - According to Rule 23(b)(3), a class action may be maintained if the court finds that questions of law or...more

Materiality Can Wait, Says the Supreme Court in Amgen

by Paul Karlsgodt | BakerHostetler on 2/28/2013

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

by Douglas W. Greene | Lane Powell PC - Securities / D&O Discourse on 2/28/2013

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

by Jordan Eth, Joel Haims, Kayvan Sadeghi | Morrison & Foerster LLP on 2/28/2013

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

Supreme Court: Statute of Limitations in SEC Fraud Cases Begins to Run When Fraud Occurs, not When Discovered

by Jay G. Baris, Randall Fons, Kelley A. Howes | Morrison & Foerster LLP on 2/28/2013

The Supreme Court today ruled that in an SEC action to recover civil penalties, the five-year statute of limitations begins to run when fraud occurs, not when it is discovered. The Court held in Gabelli et al. v. Securities...more

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

by Thomas Byrne, Thomas Curvin, Valerie Strong Sanders | Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP on 2/28/2013

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

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Need to Prove Materiality at Class-Certification Stage in Securities Class Actions

by Ann Ashton, Tanya Dmitronow, Ralph Ferrara, Sarah Gold, Gregg Mashberg, Jonathan Richman | Proskauer Rose LLP on 2/28/2013

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on February 27, 2013 that a plaintiff need not prove materiality as a prerequisite to obtaining class certification in a securities class action. The Court's ruling in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut...more

Supreme Court in Gabelli: Clock Starts Ticking When Fraud Occurs, Not When It's Discovered

by Robert J. Anello | Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello P.C.... on 2/27/2013

The law requires the SEC to bring enforcement actions seeking penalties against individuals who violate the securities laws within five years. The Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling today that rejects the SEC’s argument...more

"Supreme Court Rejects Discovery Rule on Statute of Limitations for SEC Civil Penalty Enforcement Actions"

by Jay Kasner, Matthew Matule, Edward Micheletti, Peter Morrison, Charles Smith | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on 2/27/2013

Gabelli v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, No. 11-1274 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2013) - In a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court today held that the five-year limitations period that governs SEC...more

"Supreme Court Holds Securities Fraud Plaintiffs Are Not Required to Prove Materiality of Allegedly False Statements to Certify a...