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 342

Indemnification extended to officer's post-employment actions
  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • USA
  • January 13 2012

The Delaware Chancery Court granted indemnification to an officer who defended claims against him arising from representations he allegedly made before a merger, and for related conduct that occurred after that merger


Court finds plaintiff's new evidence insufficient to satisfy PSLRA pleading requirements
  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • USA
  • October 12 2012

In a securities fraud action, a Colorado district court denied a plaintiff employees’ retirement plan’s motion for relief from a final judgment that dismissed the plaintiff’s original complaint because it did not satisfy the pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA


Battle of experts on damages saves securities fraud claims
  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • USA
  • October 26 2012

The US District Court for the Southern District of California last week denied summary judgment to securities fraud defendants based on the plaintiffs’ expert testimony regarding damages


Third Circuit affirms grant of summary judgment for defendants in securities fraud case
  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • USA
  • August 3 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that plaintiffs had failed to establish two key elements of their securities fraud claim against a corporate defendant and its two shareholders


Securities fraud claim survives despite post-fraud stock recovery
  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • USA
  • August 10 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently considered whether a stock’s share price recovery soon after the fraud became known defeats an inference of economic loss in a securities fraud suit at the pleading stage


District Court grants SEC's motion seeking final judgment for disgorgement against Ponzi scheme defendants
  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • USA
  • September 7 2012

The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted the Securities and Exchange Commission’s motion for entry of final judgment against two defendants that had perpetrated a Ponzi scheme, ordering disgorgement and assessing civil monetary penalties equal to the difference between the amounts received from and distributed to investors


Court enters judgment against Colorado Ponzi scheme perpetrator
  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • USA
  • October 5 2012

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado recently entered a judgment against Larry Michael Parrish (Parrish), who had operated a Ponzi scheme that raised approximately $9.2 million from at least 70 investors in three different states


Federal court dismisses RICO claim
  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • USA
  • February 16 2007

The District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a RICO conspiracy claim against defendants because plaintiff failed to allege an agreement to commit the predicate acts in furtherance of a RICO violation, which the Court stated was “the most basic element of a RICO conspiracy claim.”


SEC supports heightened standards governing investors’ claims
  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • USA
  • February 16 2007

In an amicus curiae brief, the Securities and Exchange Commission urged the Supreme Court to vacate the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc., 437 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2006), on grounds that the Circuit Court misinterpreted the heightened pleading standards governing securities fraud claims imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA


“Storm warnings” triggered running of statute of limitations
  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • USA
  • February 23 2007

Former employees of a private company that merged with defendant company brought securities fraud claims under 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against defendant company and its principals after steep share value declines followed certain company statements, announcements and filings between February 2001 and January 2005