Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | USA | 17 Jun 2011
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed securities fraud claims against a dental device maker based on the plaintiffs' failure to allege sufficient "hard numbers" showing that the defendants knew their public statements were false when made.
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | USA | 17 Jun 2011
The U.S. Supreme Court has found that a party that assists in the drafting and dissemination of a misleading statement related to the sale of a security - but that is not the legal entity ultimately responsible for the statement - will not be subject to liability for securities fraud under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | USA | 8 Apr 2011
Allegations that a medical device manufacturer knowingly overbilled insurance companies and reported these unrecoverable accounts as income were sufficient to support security fraud claims.
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | USA | 10 Sep 2010
Allegations that the directors of a technology company inflated the firm's business prospects and understated its potential liabilities will not support a claim for securities fraud because the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege that the directors knew these projections were false when made.
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | USA | 10 Sep 2010
The principals of a pharmaceutical company could be held personally liable for securities fraud based on allegations that the defendants misled investors and used the firm as an alter ego for their own interests.
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | USA | 13 Aug 2010
An investment company's representation that certain energy bonds were backed by the State of Georgia - when they were in fact guarantied by Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. - could subject the firm to liability for securities fraud.
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | USA | 16 Jul 2010
A former senior employee and member of a limited liability company can pursue his securities fraud claim against the firm and its managing member because his passive investment in the company supported a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | USA | 25 Jun 2010
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently denied defendant Nicolette Loisel’s motion to dismiss a Securities and Exchange Commission complaint against her and four co-defendants, which alleged, among other things, violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5), promulgated thereunder.