Joseph P. Rodgers

Joseph P. Rodgers Squire Sanders

Results 1 to 5 of 7

Precedent-setting ERISA decision: incorporating SEC filings by reference into SPDs may have adverse consequences, says the Sixth Circuit *

USA - September 10 2012
No federal circuit court had ever decided the fiduciary duty implications of incorporating SEC filings into an ERISA-mandated SPD – until now.

Co-authors: Joseph C. Weinstein, Carl A. Draucker.

New Ohio Supreme Court holds that corporations have statutory duty to advance legal fees to corporate directors *

USA - July 6 2012
On July 3, 2012, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an important and long-awaited decision regarding the advancement of legal fees to corporate directors defending lawsuits brought against them.

Co-authors: Donald W. Hughes, Cipriano S. Beredo III , Pierre H. Bergeron, Joseph C. Weinstein, David A. Zagore.

Outside service providers are not liable under federal securities laws, says US Supreme Court *

USA - June 15 2011
Can an investment adviser be held liable in a private action under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5 for false statements included in its clients’ mutual funds’ prospectuses?

Co-authors: Joseph C. Weinstein.

Pharmaceutical and other companies beware: new Supreme Court decision weighs in on adverse event reports and potential liability under federal securities laws *

USA - March 23 2011
In 2010 the US Supreme Court agreed to hear another securities fraud case – Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano – which could significantly increase pharmaceutical and other companies’ exposure under federal securities laws, especially those companies that make disclosure decisions based on the statistical significance of certain events.

Co-authors: Maureen Bennett, Patricia E. Lowry, J. Philip Calabrese, Pierre H. Bergeron, Joseph C. Weinstein.

Outside service providers may have liability under federal securities laws *

USA - December 10 2010
Can an investment adviser who simply helped draft an allegedly misleading statement in a prospectus of a different company be held primarily liable for securities fraud even though the statement was not, on its face, directly attributed to the adviser?