Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 10

Federal Court rules that issuers face strict liability for erroneous statements about legal compliance in registration statements, even if they did not know the statements were false

Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
-
USA
-
June 11 2013

A recent federal appeals court decision addressing pleading standards for shareholder suits under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as

Picard cannot make it so: Madoff trustee’s recoveries curtailed again

Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
-
USA
-
November 8 2011

In a client advisory sent by our office a few months ago, we described a decision in the Madoff saga in which the District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Court) closed off a potential avenue of significant recovery for the Madoff Trustee (the Trustee) and the Ponzi scheme victims by denying the Trustee standing to pursue certain claims against feeder funds firms that sent investors’ funds to Madoff and that failed to detect the fraud

Financial services legislative and regulatory update - October 10, 2011

Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
-
USA
-
October 10 2011

The theme of this past week is anger, primarily espoused by the Occupy Wall Street protests who continue to garner attention for their disenchantment with the financial services industry, corporate America and government

Adverse action: more expansively construed under SOX than under Title VII

Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
-
USA
-
September 22 2011

In a case of first impression, the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (ARB) finds that the meaning of the term “adverse action” under the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) is substantially broader than the meaning of the same term under Title VII, and found that the employer’s disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity in violation of the employer’s own confidentiality policy was an adverse action

Federal appeals court vacates SEC’s proxy access rule

Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
-
USA
-
August 18 2011

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) has vacated Rule 14a-11 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), which was adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) in August 2010

Madoff trustee cannot sue firms that ignored evidence of fraud

Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
-
USA
-
August 15 2011

In the aftermath of the largest Ponzi scheme ever to hit investors, Bernie Madoff’s victims are still reeling from the tremendous losses they have suffered, and are looking for any possible avenue to recover even a fraction of their investments

Lessons learned from initial “say-on-pay” litigation

Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
-
USA
-
July 18 2011

While the “say-on-pay” provision of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Act) is not even a year old, it has already spawned several derivative suits against corporate officers and directors

Supreme Court "makes" securities fraud recovery more difficult

Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
-
USA
-
June 16 2011

Legislatures legislate, and courts decide what they meant

U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejects Fifth Circuit’s requirement that plaintiffs in a securities fraud litigation prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification

Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
-
USA
-
June 9 2011

On June 6, 2011, the Supreme Court, in Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. ___ (2011), held that securities fraud plaintiffs do not need to prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification

"Whistleblowing" to media not protected by Sarbanes-Oxley

Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
-
USA
-
May 9 2011

In a decision that likely surprised no one but the plaintiffs, on May 3, 2011, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Boeing was within its right to fire two employees who complained to the media about practices they viewed as potential violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ("SOX"

next >