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.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 64

Three former employees of direct access partners plead guilty to FCPA and related charges

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 9 2013

On August 30, the Justice Department announced that three former employees of a New York-based broker-dealer, Direct Access Partners (DAP), entered

Recent FCPA opinions provide insight into the scope of personal jurisdiction over foreign nationals

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 1 2013

In recent years, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have demonstrated an increased commitment to

Court grants Daubert motion, excluding loss causation and damages opinions of plaintiffs’ expert

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 11 2008

In a recent decision, In re Xcelera.com Securities Litigation, No. 00-11649 (D. Mass. Apr. 25, 2008), Judge D.J. Zobel of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts was called upon to assess the testimony of a putative expert witness, Dr. Scott Hakala, tendered by the plaintiffs in a pending securities fraud class action

Senate judiciary committee holds hearing on financial fraud

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 24 2010

On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing entitled "Investigating and Prosecuting Financial Fraud after the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act."

SEC’s new policy requiring admissions of wrongdoing: implications for FCPA settlements?

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 30 2013

On August 19, 2013, the SEC entered into a settlement agreement with Phillip Falcone and his advisory firm, Harbinger Capital Partners, based on

SEC Inspector General reports on timing of SEC's Goldman suit

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 14 2010

On Wednesday, the SEC's Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a report clearing the SEC of accusations that its decision to bring a fraud case against Goldman Sachs, as well as the timing of its decision to do so, were influenced by a political agenda

SEC adopts Final Rules and guidance defining “security-based swap dealer” and “major security-based swap participant” in cross-border transactions

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 23 2014

On June 25, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted the first of a series of rules on cross-border security-based swap activities

The Supreme Court to revisit the “fraud-on-the-market” presumption

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 28 2012

In 1988, in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, the Supreme Court first recognized that investors seeking to pursue claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 may invoke in an appropriate case a rebuttable presumption of reliance based on the “fraud-on-the-market” theory

Supreme Court to clarify “inquiry notice” standard for securities fraud statute of limitations

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 7 2009

Last month, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify the much-litigated issue of when plaintiffs are deemed to have "inquiry notice" of their claims sufficient to trigger running of the statute of limitations for federal securities fraud claims

Second Circuit rules that state law consumer fraud class action brought by holders of debt securities was properly removed under CAFA

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 30 2008

In the recent decision, Pew v. Cardarelli, No. 06-5703-MV, 2008 WL 2042809, at 1 (2d Cir. May 13, 2008), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that a putative state law consumer fraud class action brought by the holders of certain debt instruments was properly removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), Pub.L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4