Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 75

Ninth Circuit holds that federal securities laws preempt California Labor Code's ban on forced patronage at brokerage firms

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
May 9 2013

In McDaniel v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLC, Nos. 11-17017, 11-55859, 11-55943, 11-55958, 2013 WL 1405949 (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2013), the United States

Delaware Chancery Court rejects stockholder's Section 220 books and records demand based upon failure to demonstrate "credible basis" for inspection

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
November 14 2012

In Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System v. Lennar Corp., C.A. No. 7314-VCG, 2012 WL 4760881 (Del. Ch. Oct. 5, 2012), the Delaware Court of Chancery, on a motion for summary judgment, rejected a stockholder’s demand under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“Section 220”

Delaware Supreme Court reverses Chancery Court dismissal of derivative plaintiff's Section 220 books and records action

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
February 4 2011

In King v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., No. 330, 2010, 2011 WL 284966 (Del. Jan. 28, 2011), the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reversed a decision by the Court of Chancery dismissing a derivative plaintiff’s action under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law seeking books and records of a Delaware corporation

Delaware Supreme Court affirms preclusive effect of non-Delaware dismissals and rejects irrebuttable presumption that a derivative plaintiff who fails to conduct a Section 220 inspection is an inadequate representative

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
April 23 2013

In Pyott v. Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, No. 380, 2012, 2013 WL 1364695 (Del. Apr. 4, 2013), the Delaware Supreme Court

Second Circuit reverses dismissal of Section 11 and 12(a)(2) claims, holding that plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to plead a reasonable inference of misrepresentations in a prospectus

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
March 11 2013

In New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4317 (2d Cir. Mar. 1, 2013), the United States Court

Third Circuit reinforces limits to directors' exposure for misconduct by corporate employees

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
March 7 2013

In Belmont v. MB Investment Partners, Inc., No. 12-1580, 2013 WL 646344 (3d Cir. Feb. 22, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third

New York High Court holds that state blue sky law does not preempt common law claims involving securities

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
January 4 2012

In Assured Guaranty (UK) Ltd. v. J. P. Morgan Investment Management Inc., 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 09162, 2011 WL 6338898 (N.Y. Dec. 20, 2011), the New York Court of Appeals held that the Martin Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law art. 23-A New York’s “blue sky” law designed to address fraudulent practices in the marketing of securities does not preempt common law causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence in connection with the marketing or sale of securities, even if the alleged wrongdoing also would fall within the purview of the Martin Act

New York appellate court adopts Delaware Supreme Court's Tooley test for determining whether a stockholder's claim is direct or derivative

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
August 23 2012

In Yudell v. Gilbert, 2012 WL 3166788 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t Aug. 7, 2012), the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Department, abandoned its prior ad hoc approach to determining whether a stockholder’s claim is “direct” (i.e., on behalf of the stockholder personally) or “derivative” (i.e., on behalf of the corporation as a whole), and held that the test applied by the Delaware Supreme Court in Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc., 845 A.2d 1031 (Del. 2004), provides the appropriate analysis for resolving this inquiry

United States Supreme Court holds that class action securities fraud plaintiffs need not prove the materiality of the alleged false statements or omissions to support certification of a class, resolving circuit split

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
March 7 2013

In Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, No. 11-1085, ___ WL ______ (U.S. Feb. 27, 2013), the United States Supreme Court

Seventh Circuit affirms dismissal of securities fraud class action, remanding question of sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
-
USA
-
April 9 2013

In City of Livonia Employee Retirement System v. Boeing Co., Nos. 12-1899, 12-2009 2013 WL 1197791 (7th Cir. Mar. 26, 2013), the United States Court

next >