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
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
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