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 1,496

Broker’s scheme to profit from trading Apple ends in DOJSEC charges

  • Dorsey & Whitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 16 2013

Broker David Miller did not have inside information about the Apple earnings call scheduled for October 25, 2012. He did have something else - plans

The Ninth Circuit adopts "holistic" approach to scienter and raises the bar for securities fraud plaintiffs

  • Squire Sanders
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 20 2009

On January 12, 2009 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinforced the protections of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) through its first substantial interpretation of the Supreme Court's Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. decision regarding the pleading requirements for scienter in securities fraud complaints

Ontario Court of Justice

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • January 21 2009

On November 4, 2008, Justice Shamai of the Ontario Court of Justice released reasons in R. v. Landen, an insider trading and tipping case brought pursuant to sections 76(1) and 76(2) of the Ontario Securities Act

Court upholds “asset freeze” against non-parties’ property

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 16 2009

Simultaneous with the Securities and Exchange Commission's filing of a complaint alleging massive securities fraud perpetrated by Joseph Shereshevsky and companies with which he was associated, the SEC obtained an order freezing the defendants' assets

“Fraud on the market” presumption requires showing of loss causation

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 25 2007

Plaintiffs, common stock investors in Allegiance, a national telecommunications provider, brought a securities fraud class action lawsuit under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 alleging that former Allegiance executives fraudulently misrepresented information about the company’s operations, which resulted in a drop in the company’s stock price when a corrective disclosure was ultimately made

Alston & Bird prevails by obtaining dismissal with prejudice

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 26 2009

Alston & Bird (“A&B”) obtained a dismissal with prejudice in a recent case of great significance to an industry plagued by a wave of class action filings

Securities fraud claim for failure to plead loss causation dismissed

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 1 2007

Granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s securities fraud class action claim, a federal district court held that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead loss causation because their shares in the defendants’ company lost value before, not after, the truth regarding the defendants’ purported misrepresentations was publicly disclosed

Don't pop the Stoneridge Supreme Court decision champagne corks just yet

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 4 2008

The Supreme Court decision in Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta will not be the panacea some believe; nor necessarily reduce substantially the amount of private securities litigation nor enforcement actions by governmental agencies

Court denies motion to dismiss securities fraud claims

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 15 2007

A securities fraud action was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired the common stock of Jarden Corp., a consumer products company, between June 29, 2005 and January 11, 2006

Federal court holds scienter sufficiently pleaded and denies motion to dismiss securities fraud claims

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 8 2009

A federal district court has ruled that plaintiffs in a securities fraud action against an investment fund and its advisors sufficiently pleaded claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Firm Name

Jurisdiction

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy