Securities Law Updates / Securities Legal Updates and Legal Blog

Securities Law Updates

Featured Expert Legal Commentary

Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds: Supreme Court Sides with Investors in Securities Fraud Class Action

By Josh Lawler of Zuber Lawler & Del Duca

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court recently held that plaintiffs alleging § 10(b) securities fraud do not need to prove the materiality of a defendant’s alleged fraudulent statements and omissions in order to receive class certification, settling a circuit split. In Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust… More...

More Securities Law Updates

Page 1 of 4 of Securities Law Commentaries

1 2 3 > Last »

Gabelli v. SEC: Unanimous Supreme Court Rejects Extending Statute of Limitations in SEC Enforcement Actions

Gabelli v. SEC | April 8, 2013

The Supreme Court recently upheld the five-year statute of limitations for SEC enforcement actions. In Gabelli v. SEC, No. 11-1274, (U.S. Feb. 27, 2013), the Court unanimously rejected the use of the discovery rule, which would have started to run the statute of limitations once the SEC knew of, More...

In re Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Ninth Circuit Increases Difficulty for Investors to Sue Drug Companies Based on Clinical Trial Results

December 6, 2012

The Ninth Circuit recently held that disagreement over the interpretation of clinical drug trial results was insufficient to plead falsity in a securities fraud claim. In In re Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 10-17691, 2012 U.S. App. WL 3858112 (9th Cir. Sept. 6, 2012), the Court adopted the More...

Mastick v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.: Court Upholds Use of California Arbitration Act in Contracts Governed by California Law

Mastick v. TD Ameritrade, Inc. et. al. | November 30, 2012

A California Court of Appeal recently held that a contract with a California choice of law provision fell under the scope of the California Arbitration Act and not the Federal Arbitration Act. In doing so, the court in Mastick v. TD Ameritrade, Inc. et. al. removed some of the confusion regarding More...

Lawson et al. v. FMR LLC: Sarbanes-Oxley’s Whistleblower Protection Is Limited to Employees of Publicly Traded Companies

March 28, 2012

In a split decision, the First Circuit recently held that Sarbanes-Oxley’s whistleblower protection is limited to employees of publicly traded companies and thus excludes employees of a publicly traded company’s contractors. In Lawson et al. v. FMR LLC, 670 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2012), a case of More...

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al. v. Siracusano: Securities Plaintiffs Can Use Inferences to Show Materiality and Scienter at the Pleading Stages

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al. v. Siracusano | June 29, 2011

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that in securities cases under §10(b) and Rule 10b–5 the requirement of the materiality of a defendant’s misrepresentations cannot be reduced to a bright-line rule. Facts giving rise to a strong inference that a defendant acted with the required state More...

Parkcentral Global v. Brown Investment: Hedge Fund Investors Are Entitled to Ownership Lists

Parkcentral Global L.P. v. Brown Inv. Management L.P. | December 27, 2010

The Delaware Supreme Court has ruled that hedge funds cannot hide behind federal privacy laws in refusing to disclose the identities of their investors. In Parkcentral Global L.P. v. Brown Inv. Management L.P., 1 A.3d 291 (Del. 2010), the Delaware Supreme Court held that federal privacy laws do not More...

Malack v. BDO Seidman: Rejecting the “Fraud-Created-The-Market” Theory of Reliance

Malack v. BDO Seidman, LLP | November 12, 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has rejected the use of the “fraud-created-the-market” theory of reliability for securities fraud claims. In Malack v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 617 F.3d 743 (3rd Cir. 2010), the Third Circuit upheld denial of class certification in a securities fraud More...

PIMCO v. Mayer Brown: Adopting the “Attribution” Standard for Secondary Actors

Pacific Investment Management Co. v. Mayer Brown | July 6, 2010

The Second Circuit has held that secondary actors can be held liable for Rule 10b-5 damages actions only for false statements attributed directly to the secondary actor at the time of their dissemination. In Pacific Investment Management Co. v. Mayer Brown, 603 F.3d 144 (2nd Cir. 2010), the Court More...

Merck & Co. v. Reynolds: Statute of Limitations for Securities Fraud Begins to Run When Plaintiff Receives Evidence of Scienter

Merck & Co. v. Reynolds | June 30, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. section 1658(b)(1) begins to run once the reasonable investor/plaintiff discovers the facts constituting the elements of the violation, including scienter. In Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, ___ U.S. ____, 130 S.Ct. More...

Jones v. Harris: Gartenberg Is the Proper Standard to Assess Whether Advisor Fees Are Excessive

Jones v. Harris Associates | May 21, 2010

The Supreme Court of the United States has embraced the Gartenberg standard for analyzing claims of excessive fund advisory fees under section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The Court’s unanimous opinion in Jones v. Harris Associates, ___ U.S. _____, 130 S.Ct. 1418 (2010), ended a More...

Page 1 of 4 of Securities Law Commentaries

1 2 3 > Last »