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 184

SCOTUS: no unlimited suspension of the statute of limitations under the False Claims Act; “first-to-file” doctrine does not bar related suits in perpetuity
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • May 27 2015

In an opinion released May 26, 2015, Kellogg Brown & Roots Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held


Arab Bank found liable for transactions under the Anti-Terrorism Act
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • October 9 2014

On September 22, 2014, a Brooklyn jury found Arab Bank, Jordan's largest lender, guilty of violating the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act for providing


Second Circuit affirms conviction for unlicensed money transmitting based on Chilean company's use of U.S. bank accounts
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • October 6 2010

On September 22, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction and 42-month sentence of Mauricio Alfonso Mazza-Alaluf ("Mazza-Alaluf"), a Chilean national, for conspiring to operate and actually operating an unlicensed money transmitting business based upon his company's use of bank accounts in the United States


Second Circuit rejects "collective scienter" theory for pleading a securities fraud claim against a corporation
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • July 17 2008

In Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund v. Dynex Capital Inc., 2008 WL 2521676 (2d Cir. June 26, 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that in order to state a claim for securities fraud against a corporate defendant, plaintiffs may not rely upon the theory of “collective scienter,” but instead must plead a strong inference of scienter by the individual “who was responsible for the allegedly false or misleading statements made” by or on behalf of the corporation


Line in the sand: Siemens Argentina case limits personal jurisdiction under the FCPA
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • Argentina, USA
  • March 8 2013

A New York federal district court judge has dismissed a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") claim against a former executive of Siemens, S.A


Second Circuit affirms dismissal of short-swing profit claim against Goldman Sachs arising from six-month call options
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • February 4 2014

In Roth v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., No. 12-2509-cv, 2014 WL 305094 (2d Cir. Jan. 29, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second


Add importers to those facing expanding whistleblower claims under the False Claims Act
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • March 24 2015

On February 12, 2015, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that three U.S.-based importers had agreed to pay more than $3 million to resolve a


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


United States Supreme Court decides question of corporate liability under Alien Tort Statute on broader grounds
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • April 25 2013

In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., No. 10-1491, 2013 WL 1628935 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2013), the Supreme Court of the United States addressed the


Dodd-Frank whistleblower protection: for America only
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • November 13 2013

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has held that the whistleblower protection provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act do not