Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 38

Tenth Circuit holds corporate shareholders do not have standing under RICO to sue derivatively for alleged injuries to corporation

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
March 8 2010

In Bixler v. Foster, No. 09-2138, 2010 WL 597477 (10th Cir. Feb. 22, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a class action lawsuit brought by minority shareholders of Mineral Energy and Technology Corporation (“METCO”) against its directors and lawyers

Ninth Circuit reaffirms existing precedent on materiality and "motive and opportunity" scienter allegations

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
December 7 2009

In Siracusano v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., 2009 WL 3448282 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona granting defendant Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.’s (“Matrix”) motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action brought under Section 10(b) of Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Second Circuit reverses order disqualifying defense counsel in suit over demutualization of insurance company

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
October 13 2009

In Murray v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., No. 09-3716-CV, 2009 WL 3080462 (2d Cir. Sept. 29, 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed an order by the district court disqualifying defense counsel for a life insurance company in an action alleging fraud in connection with the demutualization of defendant life insurance company

Third Circuit applies Tellabs to reject motive and opportunity test in favor of a "holistic approach" to pleading scienter in securities fraud actions

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
June 18 2009

In Institutional Investors Group v. Avaya, Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9110 (3d Cir. April 30, 2009), a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit applied the United States Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007), for the first time to existing case law in the Third Circuit

Ninth Circuit holds that district courts may reject, but may not select, lead plaintiffs' counsel in class actions brought under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
November 11 2009

In In re Cohen, No. 09-70378, 2009 WL 3681701 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed an order by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that rejected co-lead plaintiff’s selection of counsel and instead appointed a firm selected by the district court

Sixth Circuit affirms dismissal of securities fraud complaint where inference of scienter was not supported by sufficiently particularized allegations of fact

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
February 12 2010

In Konkol v. Diebold, Inc., No. 08-4572, 2009 WL 4909110 (6th Cir. Dec. 22, 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit applied the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007), to hold that securities fraud plaintiffs must plead an inference of scienter that is both “cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing competing inference.”

In Omnicom Second Circuit provides guidance on what type of information will justify investor reliance for securities fraud

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
April 6 2010

In re Omnicom Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 08-0612-CV, 2010 WL 774311 (2d Cir. Mar. 9, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing a securities fraud class action for failure to proffer sufficient evidence to support a finding of loss causation

Second Circuit holds that computer hacking for purposes of trading on inside information may be a "deceptive device" under Section 10(b) even in the absence of a breach of any fiduciary duty

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
August 7 2009

In SEC v. Dorozhko, 2009 WL 2169201 (2d Cir. July 22, 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that computer hacking for purposes of obtaining and trading on inside information may be a “deceptive device” under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, even where the hacker owed no fiduciary duty to the issuer

Second Circuit affirms dismissal of securities fraud complaint, but rejects Reform Act safe harbor defense

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
June 8 2010

In Slayton v. American Express Co., No. 08-5442, 2010 WL 1960019 (2d Cir. May 18, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a securities fraud class action against American Express Company (“Amex”) on the ground that the complaint did not plead a strong inference of defendants’ scienter

Arizona federal district court holds that Securities & Exchange Commission need not allege wrongdoing on the part of CEO when pursuing reimbursement under Section 304 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
June 15 2010

In Securities & Exchange Commission v Jenkins, No CV-09-1510-PHX-GMS, 2010 WL 2347020 (D Ariz Jun 9, 2010), the United States District Court for the District of Arizona held that the responsibility of a CEO under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the "Act") to reimburse an issuer for bonuses, incentive compensation and stock sale proceeds he or she received in the year prior to a restatement of the issuer's financial statements does not require a showing that CEO committed or even knew of misconduct that led to the restatement

next >