Search results
Order by most recent / most popular / relevance
Results: 1-4 of 4
Second Circuit clarifies standard regarding knowledge of facts that constitute a securities fraud violation for purposes of triggering the two-year statute of limitations for Rule 10b-5 claims
- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- March 16 2011
In City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v MBIA, Inc, 2011 US App LEXIS 3813 (2d Cir. Feb. 28, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit delineated the standard needed to asses how much information a reasonably diligent investor must have about the facts constituting a securities fraud violation before those facts are deemed “discovered” for purposes of triggering the statute of limitations for a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), and Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5
Brokerage firm can recover $141 million in trading losses from insurers because an "associated person" is an employee under New York law
- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- November 29 2010
In New Hampshire Insurance Co., et al., v. MF Global, Inc., Index No. 60162109 (Sup Ct, NY County, Oct. 5, 2010), Justice Bernard J. Fried granted summary judgment to MF Global, Inc. (“MF Global”), formerly one of the world’s largest non-bank futures brokerages, paving the way for it to collect on an insurance claim covering a $141.5 million loss it suffered when a rogue broker made unauthorized overnight wheat trades in 2008
District court holds no D&O insurance coverage for attorneys' fees and costs incurred in voluntary response to SEC investigation
- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- October 28 2010
In Office Depot, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. 09-80554-CIV-MARRA, 2010 WL 4065416 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2010), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently concluded that Office Depot, Inc. (“Office Depot” or the “Company”) could not recover $23 million in attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in voluntarily responding to a Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) investigation and in conducting an internal investigation and audit
Third Circuit holds that mixed presentfuture statements are protected by Reform Act safe harbor
- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- August 27 2010
In In re Aetna, Inc Securities Litigation, No 09-2970, 2010 WL 3156560 (3d Cir Aug 11, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that certain allegedly misleading statements regarding the pricing of insurance premiums by a large health insurance company were protected under the safe harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
Current Search
- Workarea - Insurance & Reinsurance
- Workarea - Litigation
- Workarea - Capital Markets
- Firm Name - Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP