As we previously noted in this post, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the Volkswagen Bondholder Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, with leave to amend, holding that it could...more
The Toshiba Securities Litigation stems from alleged violations of the Exchange Act, as well as the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act of Japan, against Toshiba Corp., in connection with its alleged accounting fraud and...more
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in China Agritech Inc. v. Resh, to determine whether “[u]pon denial of class certification, may a putative class member, in lieu of promptly joining an existing suit or promptly...more
6/12/2018
/ Appeals ,
China Agritech Inc v Resh ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
Class Members ,
Equitable Tolling ,
FRCP 23 ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Securities Fraud ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Subsequent Litigation
This case stems from alleged misstatement made by Volkswagen Group of America Finance (“VWGoAF”) in an Offering Memorandum governing the issuance of three sets of bonds. The bonds were offered in private placements with...more
5/25/2018
/ Bondholders ,
Bonds ,
Class Action ,
Direct Purchasers ,
Fraud-on-the-Market ,
Investors ,
Material Misstatements ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Private Placements ,
R&D ,
Rule 10(b) ,
Rule 144A ,
Scienter ,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ,
Securities Exchange Act ,
Securities Fraud ,
Volkswagen
The U.S. Supreme Court‘s 2017 term begins October 2nd and we will be tracking at least three cases relevant to institutional investors:
•Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund
•Digital Realty Trust v....more
9/13/2017
/ Anti-Retaliation Provisions ,
Class Action ,
Cyan Inc v Beaver Cty Emps Ret Fund ,
Digital Realty Trust Inc v Somers ,
Dodd-Frank ,
Failure To Disclose ,
Institutional Investors ,
Internal Reporting ,
Item 303 ,
Leidos Inc v Indiana Public Retirement System ,
NVIDIA ,
Regulation S-K ,
Removal ,
Rule 10(b) ,
Rule 10b-5 ,
Sarbanes-Oxley ,
SCOTUS ,
Securities Act ,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ,
Securities Fraud ,
Securities Litigation ,
SLUSA ,
State Securities Claims ,
Whistleblowers
We have been following defendants’ motions to dismiss in the In re Lending Club Securities Litigation class action, No 3:16-cv-02627-WHA, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“the...more
6/22/2017
/ Federal Pleading Requirements ,
Financial Reporting ,
Initial Public Offering (IPO) ,
Internal Controls ,
Lenders ,
Misrepresentation ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Omnicare v Laborers District Council ,
Rule 10(b) ,
Section 11 ,
Securities Act of 1933 ,
Securities Exchange Act ,
Securities Fraud ,
Shareholder Litigation
Following up on our December 15 post on the debate over the best strategy to recover foreign securities losses, a collection of Dutch Foundations (known as Stichtings) negotiated a substantial collective settlement with Ageas...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently reversed the dismissal of a securities fraud class action against Harman International Industries Inc., holding that the “safe harbor” for forward looking statements did...more
8/4/2015
/ Boilerplate Language ,
Dismissals ,
Financial Reporting ,
Inadequate Warning ,
Institutional Investors ,
Misleading Statements ,
PSLRA ,
Reversal ,
Safe Harbors ,
Securities Exchange Act ,
Securities Fraud
With the increasing barriers to successfully prosecuting a securities fraud case in the United States, including the jurisdictional limitations caused by the Morrison decision, institutional investors are sometimes now...more
7/23/2015
/ Attorney's Fees ,
Australia ,
Australian Stock Exchange ,
Class Action ,
Discovery ,
Indemnification ,
Institutional Investors ,
Jurisdiction ,
Legal Costs ,
Litigation Funding ,
Morrison v National Australia Bank ,
Securities Fraud ,
Testimony
Introduction:
Congress passed the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77a et seq. (Securities Act), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78a et seq. (Exchange Act, collectively, the Acts) following...more
In its 2010 Morrison decision, the Supreme Court decided that Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (“Section 10(b)”),only reaches “transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges”...more