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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 138

The Dutch Act on Collective Settlement of Mass Claims (WCAM) Goes Global Again: A Forum Outside the United States to Resolve Mass Claims Disputes Internationally
  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • Netherlands, USA
  • March 29 2016

On March 14, 2016, Ageas (formerly, Fortis Bank) and several foundations representing the Fortis shareholders announced a EUR 1.204 billion


Sanchez v. Crocs, Inc.: The Tenth Circuit Address Extraterritoriality
  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • USA
  • July 28 2016

In Sanchez v. Crocs, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13285 (10th Cir. 2016), the Tenth Circuit addressed whether, after Morrison v. National Australia


United States district court judge denies intervention motion by expert witness McCann, finding that “he took a check, and he took an oath, but he was faithful to only one”
  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • USA
  • March 22 2012

Judge Lynn Hughes of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied the Motion by expert witness Craig McCann to intervene in vacatur proceedings involving 19 individualcorporate investors and brokerage firm Morgan Keegan, Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. v. John J. Garrett, et al., U.S.D.C., S.D. Tex., Case No. 4:10-cv-04308


Illinois Appellate Court reaffirms rulings that nonreliance clauses bar fraud claims
  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • USA
  • March 1 2012

Last month, in Greer v. Advanced Equities, Inc., 2012 WL 335869 (Jan. 31, 2012), the First District of the Appellate Court of Illinois squarely held that “a purchaser of securities who contractually agrees through a non-reliance clause that it is not relying on any oral representation made in connection with its purchase of the securities” is “barred as a matter of law from thereafter pleading in an action alleging common law fraud that it relied on oral statements when purchasing the securities”


U.S. Supreme Court limits liability under Rule 10b-5
  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • USA
  • June 14 2011

In Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. ___ (2011), issued Monday, June 13, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court endorses a bright-line test on who can be held liable for making a false statement to investors under Rule 10b-5 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b


Omnicare Applied to Audit Reports by the Second Circuit
  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • USA
  • May 23 2016

On Friday, May 20, 2016, the Second Circuit issued the first opinion by a Circuit Court applying the Supreme Court's Omnicare decision to audit


D.C. District Court upholds SEC’s conflict minerals rules, GAO report questions effectiveness on humanitarian efforts
  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • USA
  • July 24 2013

On July 23, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Securities and Exchange


No broker-customer relationship absent a direct connection to investment-related services provided by the brokerage firm
  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • USA
  • August 14 2013

A Utah federal district court is the latest to join the chorus of opinions holding that a would-be arbitration claimant cannot proceed with a FINRA


California Northern District Court adopts “regulatory value” standard in granting motion for expungement of CRD records
  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • USA
  • September 11 2012

In Bridge v. ETrade Securities LLC, 2012 WL 3249508 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2012), the District Court granted ETrade’s motion for an order directing expungement of plaintiffs’ complaint from the Central Registration Depository (“CRD”) record of its employee pursuant to FINRA Rule 2080


Ninth Circuit reverses securities fraud conviction based on admission of prior complaint
  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2012

Rather than attempt to prove their claims with facts and evidence that relate to their own dealings with their brokers, securities claimants far too often instead seek to smear respondents by parading before the arbitrators (or the judge or jury) unrelated past complaints and settlements regardless of their merits or relevance or whether any factual findings were ever made or admitted