We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo






  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 23

Supreme Court to resolve Circuit split over materiality “standard”

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 21 2010

Last week, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a relatively new Circuit split over a pharmaceutical company's duty to disclose negative information it receives about its products

Supreme Court to decide whether materiality must be proven to certify a class

  • Blank Rome LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 14 2012

On June 11, 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve an issue that may impact whether companies can defeat securities fraud class actions early in the litigation

Supreme Court grants cert to determine if plaintiff must prove materiality before certifying class in securities fraud class action

  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 12 2012

On Monday, June 11, 2012, the Supreme Court granted a Writ of Certiorari in Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, No. 11-1085 (U.S. Jun. 11, 2012) to decide whether, in a misrepresentation case under SEC Rule l0b-5, the court must require proof of materiality before certifying a plaintiff class based on the fraud-on-the-market theory (and whether the court must allow the defendants to present evidence rebutting the applicability of the fraud-on-the-market theory before certifying the class

Seventh Circuit dismisses securities class action for failure to plead fraud

  • Holland & Knight LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 18 2012

On May 21, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed a federal securities class action against a medical device manufacturer

Statistical significance redux

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 20 2010

On September 16th, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' securities fraud complaint

Upcoming cases in the United States Supreme Court’s 2010 term: Volume II

  • Larkin Hoffman
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 15 2011

The Supreme Court's 2010-2011 term began in October, and it is expected to conclude by the end of April

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano: Supreme Court rejects bright-line materiality standard

  • Haynes and Boone LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 24 2011

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

Securities suits can be brought on non-statistically significant complaints

  • Dechert LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 22 2011

So says the unanimous Supreme Court today in Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v, Siracuso, 09-1156, slip op. (U.S. March, 22, 2011

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano

  • Dorsey & Whitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 25 2011

Failure to disclose a statistically insignificant incidence of adverse side effects could lead to significant securities-fraud liability for publicly traded drugmakers, device manufacturers, and others under a recent Supreme Court decision

“Statistically significant” standard suffers an adverse event: Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano

  • Dechert LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 23 2011

Plaintiffs seeking to assert securities fraud claims against health-care companies based on the failure to disclose adverse event reports will not be required to allege that the reports were "statistically significant," the standard that had been articulated by a number of courts

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Firm Name

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy