As posted in July, the Special Committee of the Federal Circuit voted unanimously to maintain the suspension imposed on Judge Pauline Newman (see "Judge Newman Suspended for One Year by Federal Circuit") for another year. On...more
Welcome to the fourth edition of The Employment Edit – a summary of the most important recent cases and news affecting employers in the UK. We hope you find this newsletter helpful and informative. In this edition we look at:...more
On Friday, November 12, 2021, in BST Holdings, L.L.C., et. al. vs. Occupational Health and Safety Administration, et. al., Case: 21-60845, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the plaintiffs’ motion to stay...more
Yesterday, November 16, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “Panel”) held a lottery to select the federal appeals court to address the 34 petitions seeking review of the COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing...more
It has been a turbulent November for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). On November 4, 2021, OSHA announced its long-awaited ETS requiring employers of 100 or more...more
On Saturday, November 6, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit temporarily suspended the Biden administration’s emergency temporary standard (“OSHA ETS”) for employers with 100 or more employees. As...more
An insurer of a suspended corporation has an incentive to defend the corporation because it may be liable to a judgment creditor that obtains a default judgment against the insured suspended corporate. See Cal. Ins. Code §...more
Wanke Industrial, Commercial, Residential, Inc. v. AV Builder Corp., 2020 Cal. App. LEXIS 134, involved a judgment creditor's attempt to enforce its judgment against its judgment debtor's debtor. On appeal, the debtor's...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit determined that constitutional due process principles do not require public universities to permit respondents or their advisors to cross-examine complainants in Title IX...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that someone doesn’t need to have “made” a false or misleading statement to have primary liability under the securities fraud rules. ...more
As MuniBlog readers may be aware, public access television airs programs ranging from school district and municipal government meetings to publicly hosted programs. Sometimes a program may offend viewers or be critical of...more
On June 17, 2019, the United States Supreme Court decided Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-1702, holding that a private nonprofit corporation that operates the public-access channels on the cable system in...more
On March 27, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision addressing whether someone who is not the "maker" of a misstatement can nonetheless be primarily liable for fraud under the federal securities laws, when the...more
On March 27, 2019, Justice Breyer, writing for a six-Justice majority of the Supreme Court, issued a decision in Lorenzo v. SEC, 139 S. Ct. 1094 (2019), holding that one who knowingly distributes a material misstatement can...more
On March 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Lorenzo v. SEC,[i] affirming the expansive view of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) that, under the right circumstances,...more
On March 27, 2019, the Supreme Court, in Francis V. Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, held (in a 6-2 decision) that a person who (i) knowingly disseminates false and misleading statements to prospective investors...more
On Wednesday, March 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and endorsed a broad view of so-called “scheme liability” under SEC Rule 10b-5(a) and (c)....more
The dissemination of false or misleading information can give rise to primary liability. In Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Supreme Court held that someone who (with intent to defraud) disseminates a...more
The Supreme Court of the United States recently upheld a broad interpretation of the antifraud rule of the federal securities laws that likely will have far-reaching implications for enforcement and civil actions....more
In its 2011 Janus decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that SEC Rule 10b-5 imposes liability for a false statement in connection with a securities transaction only on the “maker” of the statement, the “person or entity with...more
On March 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Lorenzo v. SEC, No. 17-1077 (2019), held that dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud violates Rules 10b–5(a) and (c) under the Securities Exchange...more
In Lorenzo v. Securities & Exchange Comm., No. 17-1077, 2019 WL 1369839 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2019), the Supreme Court of the United States (Breyer, J.) held that an individual who did not “make” a false or misleading statement...more
• The United States Supreme Court held that a disseminator of a false statement with intent to defraud can be held liable under subsections (a) and (c) of Rule 10b-5, §10(b) of the Exchange Act and §17(a)(1) of the Securities...more
In a 6 to 2 opinion Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to extend its holding in Janus Capital Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135 (2011) beyond Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(b), and held that a person who...more
On March 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Case No. 17-1077 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2019) that broadened the group of persons who could face primary liability for...more