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.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 428

Attendance at executive committee meetings insufficient to satisfy group pleading doctrine

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 22 2010

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently granted defendants’ motions to dismiss a consolidated class action asserting claims for securities fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 brought by shareholders of Celestica, Inc., a Canadian electronics corporation, against the company and its former officers, as well as against Onex Corporation, the largest controlling shareholder of Celestica, and Onex’s CEO (together, the Onex defendants) based on, among other things, the plaintiffs’ failure to plead fraud with the specificity required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

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

SEC obtains settlement for investment adviser’s real estate investment fraud

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 20 2014

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced a settlement with an investment adviser based on alleged fraud in a real estate investment

New York jury acquits former hedge fund manager of insider trading conspiracy

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 11 2014

In the first case of approximately 81 insider cases that the S.D.N.Y. has successfully brought alleging insider trading, a New York federal jury

“Sophisticated plaintiff” found to be adequate class representative

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 14 2013

The US District Court for the Western District of Texas certified a class of common stock purchasers in an action against Pain Therapeutics, Inc

Court imposes Rule 11 sanctions pursuant to the PSLRA

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 28 2010

Three attorneys were recently sanctioned under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA

Government's request to serve subpoena duces tecum on Galleon granted

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 11 2011

On October 16, 2009, Raj Rajaratnam was arrested and charged with trading or conspiring to trade in securities on the basis of inside information

“Deliberate recklessness” standard should have been applied in scienter analysis

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 8 2008

In a Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement action, a federal district court granted defendants’ motions for reconsideration of the entry of summary judgment against them on claims asserted under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5

Ninth Circuit affirms jury verdict in options backdating enforcement action

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 25 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict against Carl Jasper, the chief financial officer of Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., that held him liable for the violations of several securities laws stemming from the improper accounting of backdated options

No rescission of investment contract absent finding of fraud

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 5 2009

Plaintiffs sued an individual defendant in whose company they had invested, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of the investment contract, and common law fraud based upon defendant’s failure to disclose ongoing litigation at the time plaintiffs purchased their stock from the defendant for $1,050,000