06/25/2014 - Halliburton II: Supreme Court Holds that Fraud-on-the-Market Theory Survives but Defendants May Rebut Presumption at Class Certification
The Supreme Court issued a decision yesterday in the closely watched case of Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.
, 573 U.S. ___ (2014) (Halliburton II
04/01/2013 - Comcast Corp. v. Behrend: Supreme Court Rejects Expert Damages Model as Insufficient for Class Certification in Antitrust Class Action
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 opinion in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
, 569 U.S. ___ (2013), that a party seeking to maintain a class action must satisfy Rule 23’s requirements through evidentiary proof, even where such analysis may overlap with the merits of the underlying claim.
03/04/2013 - Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds: Supreme Court Rejects Proof of Materiality at the Class Certification Stage
On February 27, 2013, the Supreme Court held in a 6-3 opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds
, 568 U.S. ___ (2013), that securities fraud class action plaintiffs need not prove materiality at the class certification stage to invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption of class-wide reliance.
08/14/2012 - Rosado v. China North East Petroleum Holdings Ltd.: Second Circuit Holds Stock Price Recovery after Alleged Fraud Does Not Bar Securities Suit
In a recent decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals considered the issue of stock price rebounds in reviving a securities fraud class action suit that had been dismissed by the district court for failure to adequately allege an economic loss as a matter of law.
08/02/2012 - Law360 Guest Article: Case Study: Hubbard V. BankAtlantic
On July 23, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an expert witness’s event study as insufficient to demonstrate loss causation at trial in a securities fraud class action. In Hubbard v. BankAtlantic Bancorp Inc., No. 11-12410 (11th Cir. July 23, 2012), the court affirmed the trial court’s decision in favor of the defendants because the plaintiffs’ expert testimony did not sufficiently isolate the effects of the alleged fraud on the company’s stock price.
07/27/2012 - Hubbard v. BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.: Eleventh Circuit Rejects Event Study as Insufficient to Isolate Effects of Alleged Fraud on Company’s Stock Price
This week, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an expert witness’ event study as insufficient to demonstrate loss causation at trial in a securities fraud class action.
06/21/2011 - A Tale of Two Class Actions: U.S Supreme Court Ruling Allows State Litigation to Proceed Despite Federal Injunction
On June 16, 2011, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Smith v. Bayer
allowing a plaintiff to pursue class certification in a state court action after a federal court had denied certification in a substantially similar case.
05/05/2011 - Joint Ventures and Competitor Collaborations: A General Overview
You have just been hired as the general counsel for a global energy company with integrated upstream and downstream operations throughout the world.
03/24/2011 - Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano: Supreme Court Rejects Bright-Line Materiality Standard
In a unanimous opinion issued this week, Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano,
563 U.S. __ (2011), the Supreme Court declined to adopt a proposed bright-line rule for materiality and reaffirmed the Basic “total mix” test.
03/03/2011 - SEC Enforcement: Spotlighting Outside Directors
In an action filed this week, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged three outside directors of a public company with securities fraud based on their alleged failures to fulfill their roles and responsibilities as Board members. The SEC contends that by their actions and inaction, the outside directors – Jerome Krantz, Cary Chasin, and Gary Nadelman – facilitated and assisted in a massive accounting fraud at DHB Industries, Inc., a body armor supply company.