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

Territory

11 results found

Article

White & Case LLP | USA | 8 Jul 2016

Madden Uncertainty Remains for Secondary Loan Market

The US Supreme Court last week delivered another blow to the unsteady secondary loan market industry by denying a request for certiorari in an

Article

Chadbourne & Parke LLP | USA | 1 Mar 2012

New York’s Martin Act does not preempt private securities-related common law claims

The New York Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, recently held that New York’s Martin Act does not preclude private investors from bringing common law tort claims such as breach of fiduciary duty or negligence arising out of the sale of securities.

Article

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP | USA | 4 Jan 2012

New York High Court holds that state blue sky law does not preempt common law claims involving securities

In Assured Guaranty (UK) Ltd. v. J. P. Morgan Investment Management Inc., 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 09162, 2011 WL 6338898 (N.Y. Dec. 20, 2011), the New York Court of Appeals held that the Martin Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law art. 23-A New York’s “blue sky” law designed to address fraudulent practices in the marketing of securities does not preempt common law causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence in connection with the marketing or sale of securities, even if the alleged wrongdoing also would fall within the purview of the Martin Act.

Article

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | USA | 16 Sep 2011

Sixth Circuit finds that mutual fund class action is preempted by slusa

Shareholders in three mutual funds issued by Morgan Keegan Select Fund, Inc. (the Funds) filed a state court class action alleging that the Funds’ officers, directors, and affiliates took unjustified risks in allocating the Funds’ assets and then concealed those risks from shareholders, causing the shareholders to retain their shares while the shares dropped in value.

Article

Jorden Burt LLP | USA | 18 Aug 2011

New York High Court eyes Martin Act preemption

New York’s “blue sky” law, the Martin Act, has been a substantial impediment to certain types of private legal actions involving securities.

Article

Mayer Brown | USA | 18 Jan 2011

First Department rejects Martin Act preemption

The Martin ActNew York's "blue sky" lawprohibits various fraudulent and deceitful practices in the distribution, exchange, sale and purchase of securities.

Article

Proskauer Rose LLP | USA | 15 Jan 2010

A year-end review on the enforceability of state bars to discretionary clauses

In 2009, several courts considered whether state laws that bar discretionary clauses in plan provisions governing the administration of benefit claims were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and, if so, whether they were saved from preemption by virtue of ERISA’s savings clause.

Article

Alston & Bird LLP | USA | 29 Jun 2009

Putative class action with fewer than 50 prospective members nevertheless preempted under SLUSA

Courts over the years have struggled with determining when a particular group of individuals is a "class" in all but name and, thus, should be subject to the restrictions associated with bringing class claims under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA").

Article

Day Pitney LLP | USA | 22 Jan 2009

National banks exercising fiduciary powers are not subject to various state laws

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the "OCC") has issued two recent Interpretive Letters that further confirm the preemption of national bank fiduciary powers from various state laws that would seek to restrict those powers.

Article

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP | USA | 10 Mar 2008

District Court rules that state’s prohibition of “discretionary clauses” not preempted by ERISA

On February 29, 2008, a federal judge in Michigan held that ERISA does not preempt regulations issued by the Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Services (“OFIS”) that prohibit insurers from utilizing “discretionary clauses” in their insurance policies after June 1, 2007.

Previous page 1 2