In This Issue:

- U.S. Supreme Court:

..Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Indus. Pension Fund, 135 S. Ct. 1318 (4th Cir. Mar. 16, 2015)

- Auditor Liability:

..In re Advanced Battery Techs., Inc., No. 14-1410-cv (2d Cir. Mar. 25, 2015)

..Athale v. SinoTech Energy Ltd., No. 11-cv-5831 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2015)

- Class Actions:

..Class Action Fairness Act: Eminence Investors, L.L.L.P. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No. 15-15237 (9th Cir. Apr. 2, 2015)

..Class Certification: Gordon v. Sonar Capital Mgmt. LLC, No. 11-cv-9665 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2015)

- Settlements: Rieckborn v. Velti plc, No. 13-cv-03889-WHO N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2015)

- Fiduciary Duties:

..Books and Records:

..In re Lululemon Athletica Inc. 220 Litig., Consol. C.A. No. 9039-VCP (Del. Ch. Apr. 30, 2015)

..Okla. Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v. Citigroup Inc., C.A. No. 9587-ML (VCN) (Del. Ch. Apr. 24, 2015)

..Se. Pa. Transp. Auth. v. AbbVie, Inc., C.A. No. 10374-VCG (Del. Ch. Apr. 15, 2015)

- Derivative Litigation:

..In re El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. Derivative Litig., C.A. No. 7141-VCL (Del. Ch. Apr. 20, 2015)

..Palkon v. Holmes, No. 2:14-cv-01234 (SRC) (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2014) Section 205

..In re Cheniere Energy, Inc. Stockholders Litig., C.A. No. 9710-VCL (Del. Ch. Mar. 16, 2015)

- Secondary Actor Liability: Fezzani v. Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., Nos. 14-3983, 09-4414 (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2015)

- Securities Fraud Pleading Standards:

- Item 303 Disclosure:

Beaver Cnty. Emps.’ Ret. Fund v. Tile Shop Holdings Inc., No. 14-786 ADM/TNL (D. Minn. Mar. 4, 2015)

- Misrepresentations:

..In re BioScrip Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 1:13-cv-06922-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2015)

- Omissions:

Medina v. Tremor Video, Inc., No. 13-cv-8364 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2015)

- Reliance:

Le Metier Beauty Inv. Partners LLC v. Metier Tribeca, LLC, No. 1:13-cv-04650 JFK (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2015)

- Scienter:

..Zak v. Chelsea Therapeutics Int’l, Ltd., No. 13-2370 (4th Cir. Mar. 16, 2015)

..Westchester Teamsters Pension Fund v. UBS AG, No. 14-165-cv (2d Cir. Feb. 27, 2015)

..Simon v. Abiomed, Inc., No. 14-1502 (1st Cir. Feb. 6, 2015)

..Wolfe v. Aspenbio Pharma, Inc., No. 12-1406 (10th Cir. Oct. 17, 2014)

..In re CenturyLink, Inc., No. 3:13-CV-02318 (W.D. La. Feb. 3, 2015) (recommendation adopted by the district court at Docket Nos. 70 and 71 on Apr. 21, 2015)

..Taormina v. Annie’s, Inc., No. 14-02711 (N.D. Cal. April 16, 2015)

..In Re: Atl. Power Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 1:13-cv-10537-IT (D. Mass. Mar. 13, 2015)

..Muncy v. Intercloud Sys., Inc., No. 14-111-DBL (E.D. Ky. Mar. 10, 2015)

..In Re Intercept Pharm., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 1:14-cv-01123-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2015)

- Statutes of Repose/Statutes of Limitations:

..Nat’l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Barclays Capital Inc., No. 13-3183 (10th Cir. Mar. 3, 2015)

..F.D.I.C. v. Bear Stearns Asset Backed Sec. I LLC, No. 1:12-cv-04000-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2015)

..In re Biozoom, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 1:14-CV-01087-JSG (N.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2015)

- Whistleblower Protections: Murray v. UBS Sec., LLC,

- Excerpt from U.S. Supreme Court:

Supreme Court Decision Rejects Sixth Circuit Holding and Clarifies Pleading Standard for Section 11 Claims -

Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Indus. Pension Fund, 135 S. Ct. 1318 (2015)

On March 24, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an issuer may be held liable under Section 11 of the Securities Act for statements of opinion made in a registration statement if the issuer failed to hold the belief professed or failed to disclose material facts about the basis for the opinion. In so doing, the Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s decision, which had held that a Section 11 plaintiff need only allege that an opinion in a registration statement was “objectively false.” The Court held that, with respect to potential misstatement liability under Section 11, “a sincere statement of pure opinion is not an ‘untrue statement of material fact,’ regardless whether an investor can ultimately prove the belief wrong.” As to the omissions prong of Section 11, the Court further held that an issuer may be liable under Section 11 for omitting material facts about the inquiry into or knowledge concerning a statement of opinion if those facts “conflict” with what a reasonable investor would “understand an opinion statement to convey” with respect to “how the speaker has formed the opinion” or “the speaker’s basis for holding that view.”