In This Issue:

- U.S. SUPREME COURT:

..Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 13-1174 (U.S. Jan. 21, 2015)

- DEMAND FUTILITY:

..Arduini v. Hart, No. 12-15750 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2014)

- EXCHANGE ACT:

..Manning v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 13-3693 (3d Cir. Nov. 10, 2014)

..Mauss v. NuVasive, Inc., No. 13-2005 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2014)

..In re Tesla Motors, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 13-05216 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2014)

..Alpha Capital Anstalt v. New Generation Biofuels, Inc., No. 13-CV-5586 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2014)

- FIDUCIARY DUTIES:

Books and Records:

..United Techs. Corp. v. Treppel, No. 127, 2014 (Del. Dec. 23, 2014)

-Mergers and Acquisitions:

..C&J Energy Servs., Inc. v. City of Miami Gen. Emps.’ & Sanitation Emps.’ Ret. Trust, No. 655/657, 2014 (Del. Dec. 19, 2014)

..In re Family Dollar Stores, Inc. S’holder Litig., No. 9985-CB (Del. Ch. Dec. 19, 2014)

- INSIDER TRADING CLAIMS:

..U.S. v. Newman, Nos. 13-1837-cr (L), 13-1917-cr (con) (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2014)

- LEAD PLAINTIFF:

..In re Dynegy, Inc., No. 13-2581 (2d Cir. Oct. 31, 2014)

- PSLRA:

..Oregon Pub. Emps. Ret. Fund v. Apollo Grp. Inc., No. 12-16624 (9th Cir. Dec. 16, 2014)

..Wong v. Accretive Health, Inc., No. 14-2191 (7th Cir. Dec. 9, 2014)

- RULE 10B-5 OMISSION LIABILITY:

..Stratte-McClure v. Morgan Stanley, No. 13-0627-cv (2d Cir. Jan. 12, 2015)

- SCIENTER:

..In re Gold Res. Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 13-1323 (10th Cir. Jan. 16, 2015)

- SEC PROSPECTUS REGULATIONS:

..Campbell v. Am. Int’l. Grp., Inc., No. 1:14cv1320 (E.D. Va. Jan. 20, 2015)

- SECURITIES ACT CLAIMS:

..United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 880 Pension Fund v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., No. 13-6165 (10th Cir. Aug. 8, 2014)

- STANDING:

..Ret. Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund v. Bank of N.Y.

..Mellon, Nos. 13-1776-cv, 13-1777-cv (2d Cir. Dec. 23, 2014)

- TENDER OFFERS:

..Sodhi v. Gentium S.P.A., No. 1:14-cv-00287-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2015)

- WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS:

..Berman v. Neo@Ogilvy LLC, No. 1:14-cv-523-GHW-SN (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2014)

- Excerpt from Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 13-1174 (U.S. Jan. 21, 2015) - Supreme Court Holds That Claims Dismissed in Their Entirety in Consolidated Action Are Appealable:

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissing as unripe for appellate review the dismissal of a single-claim antitrust complaint in a consolidated MDL proceeding. The Second Circuit had held that because other claims in the proceeding remained active, the order was not a final decision and thus not appealable. The Supreme Court held that the district court’s order dismissing the only claim asserted for failure to demonstrate injury had all “the hallmarks of a final decision” because it precluded the plaintiffs from further participation in the consolidated proceeding. Holding otherwise, the Court determined, would create a “quandary” with respect to the timing of appeals because a consolidated proceeding may end long after individual plaintiffs’ claims have been dismissed. The “sensible solution” to this appeal-clock triggering event was held to be “[w]hen the transferee court overseeing pretrial proceedings in multidistrict litigation grants a defendant’s dispositive motion on all issues in some transferred cases, those cases become immediately appealable.” The Court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) is designed to “permit acceleration of appeals in multiple-claim cases, not to retard appeals in single-claim cases.”