In a recent 2-1 decision, the Fifth Court vacated the US Department of Labor’s controversial expansion of the ERISA fiduciary regulations (the New
Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) fiduciary investment
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.
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.
Until now, there has been little judicial guidance on how much or how little an issuer of securities should disclose in order to comply with securities law.
The trustee of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC (“BLMIS”), Irving Picard, recently suffered a severe setback in his efforts to recover money on behalf of investors in BLMIS at the expense of the banks and other financial firms that provided services to BLMIS.
Management in public companies often struggles to determine how much or how little to disclose in connection with offerings of securities.
New York’s “blue sky” law, the Martin Act, has been a substantial impediment to certain types of private legal actions involving securities.
In the aftermath of the largest Ponzi scheme ever to hit investors, Bernie Madoff’s victims are still reeling from the tremendous losses they have suffered, and are looking for any possible avenue to recover even a fraction of their investments.
On Friday, the Alaska Supreme Court decided Henrichs v. Chugach Alaska Corp., No. S-13094 (Apr. 22, 2011), in which it confirmed the vitality of the common law business judgment rule in Alaska.