In Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, No. 22-1165, 2024 WL 1588706 (U.S. Apr. 12, 2024) (“MIC”), the United States Supreme Court (Sotomayor, J.) held unanimously that “pure omissions” in a Securities and...more
4/23/2024
/ Disclosure Requirements ,
Enforcement Actions ,
Macquarie Infrastructure Corp v Moab Partners LP ,
Omissions ,
Publicly-Traded Companies ,
Rule 10b-5 ,
SCOTUS ,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ,
Securities Exchange Act ,
Securities Litigation ,
Securities Regulation ,
Securities Violations
In Jensen v. iShares Trust, 2020 Cal. App. LEXIS 61 (Cal. App. Jan. 23, 2020), a rare state court decision addressing claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”), the California Court of Appeal rejected...more
2/4/2020
/ Appeals ,
Asset Tracing ,
BlackRock ,
Broker-Dealer ,
ETFs ,
Failure To Disclose ,
Institutional Investors ,
Investment Company Act of 1940 ,
Registration Statement ,
Secondary Markets ,
Securities Act of 1933 ,
Securities Exchange Act ,
Shareholder Litigation ,
Shareholders ,
Standing
n Singh v. Cigna Corp., No. 17-3484-cv, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 6637 (2d Cir. Mar. 5, 2019), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a class action complaint that purported to base a...more
3/13/2019
/ Material Misstatements ,
Medicare ,
Policies and Procedures ,
Puffery ,
Regulatory Requirements ,
Rule 10b-5 ,
Scienter ,
Securities Exchange Act ,
Securities Fraud ,
Securities Litigation ,
Stock Drop Litigation
In Varjabedian v. Emulex Corp., No. 16-55088, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 10000 (9th Cir. Apr. 20, 2018), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit split from the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits to...more
4/27/2018
/ Acquisitions ,
Class Action ,
Disclosure Requirements ,
Dismissals ,
False Statements ,
Financial Adviser ,
Negligence ,
Pleading Standards ,
Rule 10(b) ,
Rule 10b-5 ,
Scienter ,
Section 17(a) ,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ,
Securities Exchange Act ,
Securities Litigation
In Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jensen, No. 14-55221, 2016 WL 4537377 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit broke new ground by providing the Securities & Exchange...more
9/13/2016
/ CEOs ,
CFOs ,
Disgorgement ,
Drinking Water ,
False Statements ,
False-Certification of Conformance ,
Financial Statements ,
GAAP ,
Incentive Compensation ,
Reversal ,
Sarbanes-Oxley ,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ,
Securities Exchange Act ,
Securities Fraud ,
Water ,
Willful Misconduct
In In re Kingate Management Ltd. Litigation, No. 11-1397, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6725 (2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that in order for the Securities Litigation Uniform...more
In Fezzani v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., No. 14-3983, 2015 WL 400547 (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2015) (“Fezzani II”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarified its opinion in Fezzani v. Bear, Stearns & Co.,...more
In Yates v. Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC, No. 12-2496 (4th Cir. Mar. 7, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a securities fraud claim under Section 10(b) of the...more
In Roth v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., No. 12-2509-cv, 2014 WL 305094 (2d Cir. Jan. 29, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the short-swing profits rule imposed by Section 16(b) of...more
In United States v. Vilar, Case Nos. 10-521(L), 10-580(CON), 10-4639(CON), 2013 WL 4608948 (2d Cir. Aug. 30, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange...more
In SEC v. Das, No. 12-2780, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15327 (8th Cir. July 29, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s delivery of jury instructions applying a negligence...more
In Belmont v. MB Investment Partners, Inc., No. 12-1580, 2013 WL 646344 (3d Cir. Feb. 22, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a mere failure by corporate directors to oversee enforcement...more