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 32

Life sciences company obtains dismissal of shareholder class action

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 18 2013

The US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee recently granted BioMimetic Therapeutics Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class action against

Battle of experts on damages saves securities fraud claims

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 26 2012

The US District Court for the Southern District of California last week denied summary judgment to securities fraud defendants based on the plaintiffs’ expert testimony regarding damages

District court rejects SEC argument that general partnership interests in joint ventures are securities

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 14 2012

The Securities and Exchange Commission brought an enforcement action against defendant Geodymanics, Inc. and others alleging fraud in connection with four oil and gas exploration and drilling ventures, each of which was governed by a separate but comparable joint venture agreement

Southern District of New York applies Dodd-Frank Section 929a retroactively

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 13 2012

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently addressed the question of whether Section 929A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act) applied retroactively to whistleblower claims under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

District court dismisses private securities fraud action due to plaintiff's failure to meet heightened pleading standards

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 21 2012

The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana granted defendants Simonsen and Kapidiya’s (Simonsen) motion to dismiss plaintiff Krohne Fund LP’s (Krohne) securities fraud claim arising under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but denied Simonsen’s motion to dismiss Krohne’s common law fraud claim based on the same set of operative facts

District court sustains whistleblower wrongful termination claim

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 21 2012

Plaintiff Benjamin Ashmore brought a claim alleging that defendants CGI Group Inc. (CGI) and CGI Federal Inc. (CGI Federal) violated Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, otherwise known as the whistleblower provision

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denies attempt to withdraw Fifth Amendment invocation

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 4 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently addressed the question of when a defendant can withdraw an invocation of the Fifth Amendment right to refrain from making self-incriminating statements

District Court grants motion for summary judgment in case involving the sale of unregistered securities

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 24 2012

Defendant Great American Broadcasting, Inc. purchased all of the shares of plaintiff Supernova Systems, Inc. through a Stock Purchase Agreement in July 2008

FINRA may not bring civil actions to collect disciplinary fines

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 14 2011

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority lacks the authority to bring court actions to collect disciplinary fines it has imposed on its members

Brokerage firm's sale of account holder's securities not a securities violation

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 14 2011

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held last week that a brokerage firm’s sale of an account holder’s securities for failure to meet margins calls was proper, notwithstanding the account holder’s claims that his contract with the firm was a forgery