Episode 286 -- Matt Stankiewicz on the Ripple Decision and Celsius CEO Indictment
Blue Sky Laws: Defending State-Level Securities Violations
The Justice Insiders: The Administrative State is Not Your Friend - A Conversation with Professor Richard Epstein
Four Decision Points in SEC Securities Investigations
Crypto Enforcement Is Here, and Always Has Been
Cryptocurrency: The Regulator’s Perspective
Investment Management Roundtable Discussion – Regulatory and Enforcement Update
One of the most significant differences between bringing a securities lawsuit in state versus federal court is the application of the mandatory discovery stay set forth in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (the...more
As previously discussed in our Sept. 10, 2020, client alert, in Wong v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., Case No. 18-CIV-02609 (Cal. Super. Ct. Sept. 1, 2020), the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo dismissed...more
- California state court held that federal forum provisions for Securities Act claims are not illegal and may be used to sidestep the bar on removal of Securities Act claims following the United States Supreme Court’s ruling...more
Ruling suggests a new means of stemming the flood tide of state-court Securities Act claims that followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s Cyan decision in 2018. But uncertainty lingers as to whether post-IPO public companies can...more
Thanks to a 2018 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the risk of IPO-related securities litigation has never been higher with class actions often brought by plaintiffs in both federal and state courts. With Congress not...more
On January 21, 2020, the Court of Appeals of Texas dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction a putative class action against a chemical products manufacturer (the “Company”), certain of its officers and directors, and...more
In Hoffman v. AT&T Inc., Justice Ostrager of the Commercial Division recently denied a motion to stay a securities class action in favor of a subsequently filed and more comprehensive action brought in the Southern District...more
On February 25, 2019, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute of Legal Reform (the “ILR”) published a report entitled “Containing the Contagion: Proposals to Reform the Broken Securities Class Action System” (the “Report”)....more
In Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, No. 15-1439 (Mar. 20, 2018), the Supreme Court recently held that certain federal securities-law claims could proceed in state courts—despite the narrowing effect of...more
This quarter’s issue includes summaries and associated court opinions of selected cases principally decided between February 2018 and May 2018. ...more
On March 20, 2018, the United States Supreme Court released its unanimous decision in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, 138 S.Ct. 1061 (2018). In Cyan, the Court considered whether plaintiffs can file...more
In 2017, federal securities class actions were filed at a rapid clip, averaging more than one per day – a level not seen in nearly 20 years according to survey data. It was the third year of growth and a 44% increase over...more
On March 20, 2018, a unanimous United States Supreme Court, in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver Cty. Employees Ret. Fund, No. 15-1439, 2018 WL 1384564, answered two questions concerning investors' ability to pursue alleged violations of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that class action plaintiffs can bring claims under the Securities Act of 1933 in either state or federal court. ...more
On March 20, 2018, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, No. 15-1439, that securities plaintiffs could bring class actions under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities...more
In Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, No. 15-1439, decided on March 20, 2018, the Supreme Court unanimously held that class actions based solely on the Securities Act of 1933 (33 Act) may be brought in...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on March 20 holding that investors are free to file securities class action lawsuits challenging the veracity of stock registration statements under Section 11 of the...more
In recent years, plaintiffs increasingly have challenged initial public offerings by filing securities class actions in state courts, especially California, due to an unsettled jurisdictional question. In Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver...more
A unanimous Supreme Court recently held that “covered class actions” over exchange-traded securities are not removable from state courts under SLUSA when they assert only ‘33 Act claims....more
Last Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund. The opinion by Justice Elena Kagan for a unanimous court answered two questions: Did the Securities Litigation...more
On March 20, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Kagan, ruled that state courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate class actions brought under the Securities Act of 1933...more
In a boon for public company shareholder plaintiffs this week, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state courts’ concurrent jurisdiction over securities class actions alleging violations of certain federal securities laws. The...more
On Tuesday, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that state courts have jurisdiction to hear “covered” class-action claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (1993 Act), and that defendants may not remove such claims to federal...more
In a decision that has implications for both corporate and individual defendants, the US Supreme Court ruled that class actions being brought under the Securities Act of 1933 must remain in state court. As a result,...more
On Tuesday, March 20, 2018, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees’ Retirement Fund, that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over securities class actions brought under the...more