453 results for 'cat:"Securities"'.
J. Gonzalez grants partial summary judgment and finds a Canadian augmented reality advertising firm liable on two investor’s breach of contract claim alleging the firm violated an agreement allowing investors to convert their stock warrants into shares conditioned upon certain criteria. The company was not allowed to accelerate the warrants’ expiration because its stock price had not maintained a value of $0.75 for 10 consecutive days, as stipulated under the agreement. The court leaves the question of damages for a jury to determine.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Gonzalez, Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv3880, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: securities, Contract
J. Ramos grants the company's motion to dismiss a securities fraud class action alleging it made false and misleading statements about its franchise model and plan to build a new company headquarters. A 2022 investigative report claiming that a majority of the company's stores were actually direct-owned and not franchised does not prove that the statements made in 2020 were false. Further, the company did not mislead investors regarding its plan to use IPO funds to purchase land for a new headquarters, and was not required to announce future transactions that were still subject to change.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Ramos, Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv9864, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: Fraud, securities, Class Action
J. Wilson grants the SEC's motion for monetary remedies and injunctive relief for its complaint that the company owner engaged in a fraudulent investment scheme by hiding his criminal history from investors, combining personal and investment funds, misrepresenting his returns, and buying property with investment funds. The SEC shows that the company owner is likely to commit fraud in the future, because he defrauded multiple investors over several years and there is evidence that he is still soliciting victims during this case.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Wilson, Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: 8:19cv1174, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: Fraud, securities, Injunction
[Consolidated.] J. Immergut appoints Dr. Lawrence Lo as lead plaintiff in the investors' class action that the nuclear power company and its current and former executives falsely claimed that they could fulfill large contracts with Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems and Standard Power. Dr. Kevin Liang Li opposes Dr. Lo as lead plaintiff, but Dr. Lo's claims are "reasonably co-extensive with other class members'," and the 9th Circuit does not support Dr. Li's assertion to disqualify Dr. Lo because he did not retain his shares through every corrective disclosure.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Immergut, Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv1689, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: Civil Procedure, securities, Class Action
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Gilliam Jr. allows a few narrow securities claims to proceed against C3, an AI software company, and Baker Hughes, an oil company, from investors who say the two companies entered into a software services agreement with each other without telling investors about certain sales issues or that it would result in a restructuring of C3's own salesforce. The bulk of the claims fail for not showing any proof of what exactly investors lost or what securities laws were violated during the software agreement. The only claims that proceed are those premised on the claim that investors were not fully informed on how much of Baker Hughes' salesforce was going to be involved in selling C3's software.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Gilliam Jr. , Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: 4:22cv1413, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: securities
J. Abramson finds the county court improperly dismissed the construction company's counterclaim. The capital group brought a breach of contract action after the company allegedly failed to make payments outlined in the contract for future receivables. The construction company argues the contract qualifies as a security, and the county court failed to consider all relevant factors as to whether the contract is subject to the Arkansas Securities Act. Reversed.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Abramson , Filed On: February 21, 2024, Case #: CV-22-100, Categories: Construction, securities, Contract
J. Tostrud partially grants the employees' motion for judicial notice of a number of documents in their proposed class action alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions in relation to their employer's 401(k) plan, and denies the employer and fiduciaries' motion to dismiss the suit. The employees' claims that the fiduciaries' use of particular preferred stock dividends rather than common stock to satisfy the employer's matching-contribution requirements were prohibited under ERISA are sufficient to plausibly allege claims under ERISA and for breach of fiduciary duty, and they have established that they have suffered an economic injury traceable to the allegedly unlawful conduct for standing purposes. As to the documents, the Plan is embraced by the pleadings and the remaining exhibits would not change the court's analysis.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tostrud, Filed On: February 21, 2024, Case #: 0:22cv2354, NOS: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) - Labor, Categories: Erisa, securities, Fiduciary Duty
J. Underhill grants the government's motion for final judgment, ruling the securities broker and his trading firm will be permanently barred from issuing any securities in the future and will also be required to disgorge over $223,000 in profits gained only through the manipulation of stock prices and the misleading of clients.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Underhill, Filed On: February 21, 2024, Case #: 3:20cv397, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: Fraud, Sanctions, securities
J. Troutman answers a reformulated certified question by finding that Venezuelan law governs the validity of notes offered for swap by a state-owned oil company to avoid default. While documents outlining the exchange of older, unsecured notes for newer, secured ones contained a choice-of-law provision, New York's uniform commercial code specifies that the laws of the issuer's jurisdiction apply, and the swap was not authorized as required by the Venezuelan National Assembly. New York law, however, will determine all other aspects of the transaction under the uniform commercial code, including any consequences of a defect in a security's validity.
Court: New York Court Of Appeals, Judge: Troutman, Filed On: February 20, 2024, Case #: 06, Categories: securities, Choice Of Law, Contract
J. Trauger denies the plaintiff nonprofit corporation's motion for a preliminary injunction and partially grants the fund defendants' dismissal motion in this lawsuit asserting claims under the federal Exchange Act, as well as the Tennessee Securities Act and the Tennessee Blue Sky Law. The complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented that a certain fund was a success and that they failed to disclose that it "had been losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2021." However, the corporation fails to show irreparable harm, for purposes of the requested injunction, as it only entrusted money to the defendants. Accordingly, its alleged injury could be remedied "with economic damages at the conclusion of litigation."
Court: USDC Middle District of Tennessee , Judge: Trauger, Filed On: February 20, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv685, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: Fraud, securities, Fiduciary Duty
J. Hicks grants the Securities and Exchange Commission's motion for partial summary judgment in its case against a bestselling author and wealth coach that sold oil and gas securities as an unregistered broker. No question of material fact exists that she acted as an investment adviser who failed to disclose conflicts of interest such as her entitlement to compensation for the sales. Claimed exclusions do not exempt the coach and her associates from their fiduciary duties.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Hicks, Filed On: February 16, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv269, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: Fraud, securities, Fiduciary Duty
J. Huie grants the shareholder $520,000 in attorney fees after a jury found in its favor in a lawsuit seeking to recover short-swing profits that the President and CEO of Franklin Wireless Corp. realized in two securities transactions. The shareholder requested $700,000 in fees, equating to 35% of the jury's $2 million award, but the amount is reduced to 26% of the recovery due to the short duration of the trial and the relatively simple issues in this case.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Huie, Filed On: February 16, 2024, Case #: 3:21cv1316, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: securities, Attorney Fees
J. Bloom dismisses the Commission's appeal of a magistrate judge's denial of its application of an order requiring compliance with an administrative subpoena in its investigation of suspected insider trading in connection with the acquisition of Office Depot by Staples. The magistrate judge did not clearly err in finding that the subpoena was testimonial in nature and therefore subject to fifth-amendment privilege, nor in finding that it had failed to satisfy the "foregone conclusion" test under which otherwise testimonial acts of production may be compelled because the government is already aware of the produced material.
Court: USDC Southern District of Florida, Judge: Bloom, Filed On: February 15, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv22764, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: securities, Discovery, Privilege
J. Abrams rejects a plaintiff's objections to the consolidation of these three securities class actions against the defendant company. However, its objection to the current lead plaintiff for the consolidated action are persuasive, and the objector shall be substituted as lead plaintiff for the class' Securities Act claims and granted approval of its selected law firms as lead counsel.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Abrams, Filed On: February 15, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv2789, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: Fraud, securities, Class Action
J. Zilly defers the investors' proposed notices and claim form as part of their unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement for their class action, which alleges that the pharma company made misleading claims about its registration statement. The investors and the pharma company are to craft a suitable opt-out form, which they will include with the notice to putative class members that is available for download from the settlement administrator's website.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Zilly, Filed On: February 15, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv861, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: Settlements, securities, Class Action
J. Pryor finds that the district court properly ruled the individual was a dealer under the Securities Exchange Act and correctly ordered him to disgorge his profits from a type of "toxic lending" in which he obtained the convertible debt of penny-stock companies, converted the debt into common stock at a discount and sold the stock in high volumes. The individual was an unregistered securities dealer at the time of the transactions. The commission's enforcement action against him did not violate his due process rights. However, the district court incorrectly banned the individual from participating in future penny-stock offerings. The individual gave sincere assurances against future securities law violations and his conduct was not egregious. Affirmed in part.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Pryor, Filed On: February 14, 2024, Case #: 21-13755, Categories: securities
J. Watters denies in large part a motion to dismiss several securities and contract claims against an oil company and its president from the president's sister. The sister claims that despite her having an ownership in the company, the president has used the company to benefit himself and his family to the detriment of his sisters, violating a trust as a result. Neither party has shown that any of the "triggering events" have happened yet, meaning the statute of limitations period has not even begun. Some claims are tossed, such as a misapplication of corporate assets claims, for being derivative of others.
Court: USDC Montana, Judge: Watters, Filed On: February 14, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv59, NOS: Stockholders’ Suits - Contract, Categories: securities, Contract
J. Kirsch denies plaintiff a restraining order against a decentralized autonomous organization that allegedly failed to process the investor's cryptocurrency redemption requests. The investor failed to establish the company would not be able to pay an award following trial, and an alleged security incident in the underlying treasury in 2024 did not render the claims urgent because the investor purchased the tokens after similar incidents in 2023.
Court: USDC New Jersey, Judge: Kirsch , Filed On: February 13, 2024, Case #: 3:24cv722, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: securities
J. Mahan grants the gaming device supplier's motion for judgment on the pleadings on putative class securities claims filed by a pension plan arising from the supplier's alleged fraudulent inflation of its share prices via misrepresentations and omissions. Certain claims by certain plaintiffs were dismissed for lack of standing, and the class has failed to timely prosecute by filing an amended complaint. No reason has been given for this failure and no attempt to cure the questions of standing have been made.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Mahan , Filed On: February 12, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv1209, NOS: Stockholders’ Suits - Contract, Categories: Fraud, securities, Class Action
J. Subramanian finds that the district court improperly dismissed class claims contending Mexican branches of multinational banks engaged in price-fixing on government bonds sold to U.S. retirement funds because while actual pricing occurred in Mexico, nonparty broker-dealers facilitated sales from New York.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Subramanian, Filed On: February 9, 2024, Case #: 22-2039-cv, Categories: Antitrust, securities, Jurisdiction
J. Edison recommends granting, in part, a retirement association and pension fund's motion for class certification in their securities action against an oil exploration and production company. The company has rebutted certain claims falling beyond 2018; therefore, the class period will be limited to September 2016 to February 2018.
Court: USDC Southern District of Texas, Judge: Edison, Filed On: February 9, 2024, Case #: 4:21cv575 , NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: Energy, securities, Class Action
J. Sotomayor finds that the circuit improperly ruled in whistleblower claims brought after an employee was allegedly terminated for reporting securities violations because statute did not require the employee to demonstrate the "employer acted with retaliatory intent," only that he had been terminated for reporting what he believed to be misconduct. Reversed.
Court: US Supreme Court, Judge: Sotomayor, Filed On: February 8, 2024, Case #: 22-660, Categories: Employment, securities, Whistleblowers
J. Ludwig grants summary judgment to the financial correspondent, the investment firm and the firm's founder the investors claim were involved with their transactions with a wealth management group that turned out to be a Ponzi scheme, which caused the investors to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. The investors have failed to bring specific evidence of specific wrongdoing by the the correspondent, firm and founder, instead mostly reiterating the wrongdoing of the group and its chief, who is now in prison. The investors' claims of intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and claims of violations of Wisconsin statutes involving the sale of unregistered securities, fraud and unlicensed brokers fail, and the correspondent, firm and founder are dismissed. The investors have 14 days to make a case for why the firm's employee should not also be granted summary judgment.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge: Ludwig, Filed On: February 7, 2024, Case #: 2:18cv2005, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Fraud, securities, Contract