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 206

First Circuit reaffirms FCA’s “first-to-file” bar as a broad jurisdictional limit
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • January 22 2015

In early December 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reaffirmed that circuit's broad interpretation of the False Claims


Recent developments in cases dealing with the False Claims Act’s first-to-file and public disclosure bars
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • October 28 2014

The False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, enables whistleblowersalso known as qui tam relators to file fraud suits on


Who’s a “foreign official”? Supreme Court could clarify key FCPA term
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • September 18 2014

On August 14, 2014, Joel Esquenazi and Carlos Rodriguez filed a Petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking clarification of


Second Circuit limits “tippee” insider trading liability
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • December 11 2014

In United States v. Newman, No. 13-1837 (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the 2013


Ninth Circuit reverses dismissal of securities fraud complaint on loss causation grounds despite three-month delay between corrective disclosure and market reaction
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • September 22 2008

In In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation, 536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008), a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a securities fraud complaint that the district court had held failed to plead loss causation due to the passage of time between the disclosure of the alleged fraud and the drop in the company’s stock price


Ninth Circuit rejects theory of "collective scienter" and reaffirms pre-Tellabs authority applying heightened requirements for pleading scienter in securities fraud actions
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • December 4 2008

In Glazer Capital Management, LP v. Magistri, 2008 WL 5003306 (9th Cir. Nov. 26, 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that when pleading scienter as to a corporate defendant, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “Reform Act”) “requires plaintiff to plead scienter with respect to those individuals who actually made the false statements.”


Second Circuit reaffirms continued use of the "knowing possession" causation standard in Rajaratnam insider trading case
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • June 28 2013

In United States v. Rajaratnam, No. 11-4416-CR, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12885 (2d Cir. June 24, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second


Second Circuit affirms conviction for unlicensed money transmitting based on Chilean company's use of U.S. bank accounts
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • October 6 2010

On September 22, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction and 42-month sentence of Mauricio Alfonso Mazza-Alaluf ("Mazza-Alaluf"), a Chilean national, for conspiring to operate and actually operating an unlicensed money transmitting business based upon his company's use of bank accounts in the United States


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


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