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 264

Granting certiorari in Varjabedian, Supreme Court will address circuit split over disclosure claims in tender offers
  • DLA Piper
  • USA
  • January 7 2019

Last Friday, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, No. 18-459, to answer a potentially far-reaching question under


Capital Markets & Public Companies Quarterly: Expanding Relief under Smaller Reporting Company, Reg A and Rule 701, SEC Enforcement of Cybersecurity Disclosures and Other News
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 11 2018

During the previous quarter, the SEC acted to expand the number of companies that may rely on the “smaller reporting company” scaled disclosure regime


Supreme Court to Consider Whether Non-Compliance with SEC Regulation Can Give Rise to Securities Fraud Liability
  • Dechert LLP
  • USA
  • May 3 2017

In Leidos, Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System, No. 16-581, the U.S. Supreme Court will resolve an important circuit split regarding securities


Second Circuit notes split with Ninth Circuit over whether failure to make adequate disclosures under item 303 of Regulation S-K may serve as basis for a Section 10(b) claim
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • January 26 2015

In Stratte-McClure v. Morgan Stanley, No. 13-0627-cv, 2015 WL 136213 (2d Cir. Jan. 12, 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second


Supreme Court's decision reshapes class certification for future securities class actions
  • Holland & Knight LLP
  • USA
  • March 18 2013

On February 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a long-standing circuit split on the issue of whether, when bringing a securities fraud class


Supreme Court holds proof of materiality not required to certify a securities fraud class action
  • Chadbourne & Parke LLP
  • USA
  • March 11 2013

On February 27, 2013, the Supreme Court held plaintiffs in a Rule 10b-5 securities fraud class action for damages need not prove materiality to


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


Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds: proof of materiality is not required for class certification in a fraud-on-the-market action
  • Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
  • USA
  • March 1 2013

In a 6-to-3 decision resolving a circuit split between the First, Second and Fifth Circuits and the Third, Seventh and Ninth Circuits, the Supreme


Supreme Court issues major securities class action ruling
  • Hogan Lovells
  • USA
  • March 1 2013

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs in securities fraud cases do not have to establish materiality before a class can be certified


A circuit split on class certification in securities fraud cases
  • Dorsey & Whitney LLP
  • USA
  • November 14 2011

The Ninth Circuit joined the Third and the Seventh in concluding that at the class certification stage plaintiffs in a securities fraud damage action need not prove materiality to utilize the fraud-on-the market.