Search results
Order by most recent / most popular / relevance
Results: 1-4 of 4
Second Circuit reverses class certification order, holding that a clearing broker's alleged knowledge of fraud against shareholders, absence direct involvement, is insufficient to create a duty of disclosure
- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- March 27 2013
In Levitt v. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., No. 10-4596, 2013 WL 1007678 (2d Cir. Mar. 15, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
United States Supreme Court holds that securities fraud plaintiffs need not establish loss causation to certify a class
- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- June 13 2011
In Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co.,No. 09-1403, 2011 WL 2175208 (U.S. June 8, 2011), the United States Supreme Court held that securities fraud plaintiffs need not prove loss causation in order to invoke the presumption of investor reliance at the class certification stage
Third Circuit follows the Second Circuit permitting defendants to rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption at the class certification stage
- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- April 14 2011
In In re DVI Inc. Securities Litigation, Nos. 08-8033 & 08-8045, 2011 WL 1125926 (3d Cir. Mar. 29, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed an order granting in part a motion under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to certify a class in a securities fraud action
Federal Circuits grapple with standard of proof and the "fraud-on-the-market" presumption at class certification stage
- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- October 2 2009
In recent years, a split among the circuits has developed in federal securities class actions with regard to the procedure and standard of proof required to certify a class
Current Search
- Workarea - Capital Markets
- Author - John Stigi
- Author - Jonathan Moss