Home » Securities Law Updates » New Statutes, Regulations and Rules
Securities Law Summaries
| New Judicial Opinions | |
| New Settlements and Verdicts | |
| » | New Statutes, Regulations and Rules |
| New Releases/No Action Letters | |
| New Proposed Legislation |
Adoption of Updated EDGAR Filer Manual
Release Nos. 33-8834; 34-56256; 39-2448; IC-27928, 17 CFR Part 232, RIN 3235-AG96, 08/15/2007
Securities Law Technical Corrections Act of 2007
H.R.3505, 12/07/2007
Revisions to the Eligibility Requirements for Primary Securities Offerings on Forms S-3 and F-3
Release No. 33–8878; File No. S7–10–07; RIN 3235–AJ89; 17 CFR Parts 230 and 239, 12/27/2007
New Rule on Acceptance from Foreign Private Issuers of Financial Statements
Release Nos. 33–8879; 34–57026; International Series Release No. 1306; File No. S7–13–07; RIN 3235–AJ90; 17 CFR Parts 210, 230, 01/04/2008
Covered Securities Pursuant To Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933
33-8791; File No. S7-18-06, 17 CFR Part 230, RIN 3235-AJ73, 04/18/2007
Securities Law Commentaries
Following are Securities Law Commentaries elaborating on the significance of the most important of the Securities Law Summaries.
Roth v. Jennings Seeks to Address Issue of What Constitutes a Group in Applying Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act
Roth v. Jennings
Posted: 10/19/2007
Commentary: In Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499 (2nd Cir. 2007), the Second Circuit Court revisited the issue of pleading a “group” 1 for purposes of Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court reversed a district court’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s Section 16(b) claim seeking disgorgement of short-swing profits. The appellate court said that the district court had improperly given too much weight to the defendants’ disclaimers of their “group” status in SEC filings and had misconstrued the final sentence of Section 16(b), which states that the section does not apply if the short-swing trader is not a “beneficial owner” at both ends of the purchase-sale transaction. More...
Related summary: Second Circuit Affirms in Part and Vacates in Part District Court's Ruling in Roth v. Jennings
Ring: Establishing a Fine Distinction of What Is a Covered Security under SLUSA
Ring v. AXA Financial, Inc.
Posted: 08/29/2007
Commentary: While the cases of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71 (2006), Lander v. Hartford Life & Annuity Life Ins. Co., 251 F.3d 101 (2d Cir.2001), SEC v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. of Am., 359 U.S. 65 (1959) (“VALIC”), and Fisher v. Kanas, 2007 WL 1352713 (E.D.N.Y.), 487 F.Supp.2d 270 may have heightened the bar for filing class action lawsuits before state courts involving a “purchase and sale” of a “covered security” both as defined under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”), the instant case of Ring v. Axa was a deviation from this line of cases, as the Court of Appeals established a fine distinction of what is a “covered security” and what is not within the meaning of the SLUSA. More...
Related summary: Second Circuit Remands Ring v. AXA, Reverses District Court's Ruling
Fisher v. Kanas Continues Line of Cases That Puts Limit on the Right to Initiate Class Action Suits
Fisher v. Kanas
Posted: 08/23/2007
Commentary: This case is a continuation of a line of jurisprudence that seeks to impose a strict limitation on the right of stockholders to initiate class action law suits in state courts. More...
Related summary: NY District Court Dismisses Class Action Suit in Fisher v. Kanas
Merck: Difference Between Mutual Fund and Direct Investor Crucial in Resolving Motion to Dismiss
In Re Merck & Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative & "Erisa" Litigation
Posted: 08/14/2007
Commentary: In this case, the court considers whether there is a difference between a mutual fund investor and a direct investor in determining whether or not a securities action should be dismissed for failing to heed a storm warning. More...
Related summary: In re Merck & Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative & “Erisa” Litigation
