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

Refine your search

Content type
Tags
Firm name
Author
Jurisdiction

308 results found

Article

Alston & Bird LLP | USA | 31 Jul 2015

Halliburton on remand defendants defeat certification for the vast majority of plaintiffs’ claims

On July 25, 2015, the Honorable Barbara M. Lynn of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered the much anticipated

Article

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | USA | 30 May 2014

Eleventh Circuit clarifies loss amount calculation for securities fraud sentencing

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently vacated and remanded a defendant's sentence because the US District Court for the Southern

Article

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP | USA | 9 Apr 2013

Seventh Circuit affirms dismissal of securities fraud class action, remanding question of sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel

In City of Livonia Employee Retirement System v. Boeing Co., Nos. 12-1899, 12-2009 2013 WL 1197791 (7th Cir. Mar. 26, 2013), the United States Court

Article

Winston & Strawn LLP | USA | 4 Jun 2012

Case alleging violations of the Securities Act is reinstated

On May 25th, the Second Circuit vacated and remanded an order denying plaintiff's motion to file an amended securities fraud complaint.

Article

Dorsey & Whitney LLP | USA | 20 Jul 2011

The “no knowledge” defense applies to a criminal 10(b) charge

The Eighth Court held that a person who pleads guilty to a criminal violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 is entitled at sentencing to invoke the “no knowledge” provision of Exchange Act Section 32(a) to try and avoid a term of imprisonment.

Article

Holland & Knight LLP | USA | 20 Jun 2011

Supreme Court rules loss causation need not be proven at class certification

On June 6, 2011, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs in securities fraud actions do not need to prove loss causation at the class certification stage.

Article

Seyfarth Shaw LLP | USA | 8 Jun 2011

Reading tea leaves from the scotus ruling in Halliburton

So what does the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of June 6 vacating the Fifth Circuit’s decision affirming the denial of class certification in Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co. tell employers about what the Supreme Court might do when deciding the highly-anticipated Dukes v. Wal-Mart case?

Article

Haynes and Boone LLP | USA | 7 Jun 2011

Supreme Court rejects Fifth Circuit requirement that securities fraud plaintiffs must prove “loss causation” at class certification stage

In a unanimous opinion issued yesterday in Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. __ (2011), a securities class fraud action, the Supreme Court held that class certification had been improperly denied by the Fifth Circuit based on the absence of “loss causation.”

Article

Morrison & Foerster LLP | USA | 7 Jun 2011

U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejects Fifth Circuit rule requiring securities fraud plaintiffs to prove “loss causation” in order to obtain class certification

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Fifth Circuit’s rule that securities fraud plaintiffs are required to prove “loss causation” (i.e., that the defendant’s deceptive conduct caused their economic loss) to obtain class certification of their claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. (Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co.)

Article

Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP | USA | 6 Jun 2011

Supreme Court holds that securities fraud plaintiffs do not need to prove loss

In order to prevail in a private securities fraud action, a plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants' deceptive conduct caused his or her economic loss - a concept known as "loss causation."

Previous page 1 2 3 ...