446 results for 'cat:"Securities"'.
J. Ho finds the district court improperly certified the class of investors alleging the petroleum corporation fraudulently misrepresented the value of its oil field project. During certification proceedings, the investors presented new evidence in a reply brief involving an after-hours disclosure of a dry well, giving the corporation no fair opportunity to address it. The district court failed to permit the corporation to file a sur-reply responding to the evidence. Vacated.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Ho , Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 23-20424, Categories: Energy, Fraud, securities
J. Edison finds, upon remand, that one group of investors in a divided class can move forward with class certification in a case regarding a failure to disclose information prior to a merger. The court initially ruled that applicants for a class action must be separated because the class included stockholders of both companies involved in the merger creating a conflict. On remand, one group of investors holding stock in one of the companies involved in the merger can certify as a class at this juncture with the recommendation that investors holding stock in the other company be permitted to apply for class certification separately.
Court: USDC Southern District of Texas, Judge: Edison, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 4:18cv4330, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: 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. Matsumoto approves a $9.5 million proposed class action settlement against a steel manufacturer on claims for securities violations. Investors sued the company following a steep decline in its stock price after it was reported it had engaged in a bribery scheme targeting government officials in Argentina. The court awards lead counsel a third of the settlement amount, approximately $3.1 million, in attorney fees, plus $83,935 in expenses.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Matsumoto, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: 1:18cv7059, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: securities, Class Action
J. McKeown finds that the district court properly dismissed a securities fraud action against an international information services company under a Securities Exchange Act and Rule. The class alleged that the company made materially misleading statements by omitting key facts regarding a 2015 acquisition and a 2017 investment. The class was unable to show a strong inference that the company acted with the intent to deceive or with deliberate recklessness as to the possibility of misleading investors. Affirmed.
Court: 9th Circuit, Judge: McKeown, Filed On: April 19, 2024, Case #: 22-55829, Categories: securities, Class Action
Per curiam, the circuit finds that the district court properly dismissed class securities fraud claims brought after a spinoff of Honeywell International filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy due to legacy asbestos indemnity issues because the class failed to plead scienter with sufficient specificity to establish that the spinoff recklessly assured investors of its financial health while planning for bankruptcy. Affirmed.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: April 17, 2024, Case #: 23-668-cv, Categories: Bankruptcy, Fraud, securities
J. Bennett denies Under Armour and its founder, as well as the stockholders suing them, their motions to exclude expert testimony and opinions of expert witnesses in this securities class action. The court finds that two of Under Armour’s witnesses are precluded from certain portions of their opinions, but may exclude those and testify the rest. The witnesses all should describe the opinions as to their scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge based on sufficient facts and evidence.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Bennett, Filed On: April 16, 2024, Case #: 1:17cv388, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: Evidence, securities, Experts
[Consolidated.] J. Easterbrook finds that the lower court improperly denied an investor's motion to intervene in a dismissed securities class action. The investor seeks to challenge $300,000 in mootness fees paid by the corporation to counsel in a suit mooted after the company agreed to make supplemental disclosures about its proposed merger. He claims that the only purpose of the suit was not needlessly increase the cost of litigation to induce the company to pay fees to counsel, while not providing any real benefit to investors. While the court has already ordered the fees returned in this particular case, counsel are entitled to be heard, and the court may consider sanctions. Vacated.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Easterbrook, Filed On: April 15, 2024, Case #: 18-2220, Categories: securities, Attorney Fees, Class Action
J. Nye denies investors' motions to modify the scheduling order, for leave to amend, to reopen discovery and for reconsideration in a landfill acquisition project investment dispute. The investors' "newly discovered evidence could have easily been discovered at any point prior to or during this litigation." They do not cite unforeseen circumstances that prevented them from seeking the records earlier. The investors do not address their "untimely delay in requesting the records and petitioning this Court for modification, amendment, and reconsideration."
Court: USDC Idaho, Judge: Nye, Filed On: April 15, 2024, Case #: 1:20cv544, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: Fraud, securities, Discovery
J. Bennett grants cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings in favor of Under Armour brought by the insurer in this insurance dispute from a consolidated class action over securities, derivative matters and a government investigation. The parties reached an agreement, and they no longer dispute the insurance coverage during the relevant times.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Bennett, Filed On: April 15, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv2481, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Insurance, securities, Class Action
J. Sotomayor finds that the court of appeals improperly ruled in securities claims alleging "failure to disclose," which cannot support a private claim since a pure omission is not actionable. Reversed.
Court: US Supreme Court, Judge: Sotomayor, Filed On: April 12, 2024, Case #: 22-1165, Categories: securities
J. Browning denies the former securities firm owner's motion to vacate the arbitration award, ruling that because he and the buyers of the firm were all Financial Industry Regulatory Authority-associated individuals, he agreed to arbitrate any dispute in front of a FINRA arbitrator when he sold the firm. However, the employee's decision to arbitrate with the buyer in a non-FINRA forum supersedes her previous agreement and prevented any award against her; therefore, the FINRA arbitration award is vacated in respect to the employee.
Court: USDC New Mexico, Judge: Browning, Filed On: April 9, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv596, NOS: Arbitration - Other Suits, Categories: Arbitration, securities
J. Cote grants an oil and natural gas company’s motion to dismiss in this matter of alleged securities fraud. An investment fund argues the oil company owned by the Venezuelan government engaged in a scheme to defraud investors when notes were declared invalid by an interim Venezuelan president in 2019. But the investment company failed to state a claim for which relief could be sought, so the instant court finds in favor of the oil company. Dismissed.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Cote, Filed On: April 8, 2024, Case #: 23cv5604, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: Fraud, securities
J. Mendoza finds that the district court ruled improperly in part in a securities-fraud complaint against children's entertainment company Genius Brands International. The shareholders adequately pleaded that Genius fraudulently concealed its relationship with a stock promoter, as well as adequately pleaded loss causation with respect to claims that Genius misrepresented that Disney or Netflix would be acquiring the company. However, they did not adequately plead loss causation relating to Genius' alleged misrepresentations regarding its relationship with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Reversed in part.
Court: 9th Circuit, Judge: Mendoza, Filed On: April 5, 2024, Case #: 22-55760, Categories: Fraud, securities
J. Pechman finds in favor of Oppenheimer & Co. for its complaint seeking to prevent the investors from asserting claims against it in a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration case, as the investors want to recover funds they lost in a private equity fund called Horizon Private Equity III LLC that an Oppenheimer-registered broker allegedly created and operated for a Ponzi scheme. The Oppenheimer & Co. has no obligation to arbitrate any and all claims that the investors asserted in the underlying FINRA arbitration case because the investors do not present any evidence that the registered broker facilitated the purchase through the trust company.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Pechman, Filed On: April 5, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv67, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: Arbitration, securities
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the lower court properly granted Viacom's motion to dismiss a securities class action, but denied the underwriters' motion to dismiss the same claims. A reasonable investor could find it relevant that the underwriters planned to sell their own holdings of Viacom, while Viacom was offering $3 billion of equities. Investors have adequately alleged that the underwriters did not implement any information barrier between their underwriting and brokerage departments that would have prevented the improper trading on insider information. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: April 4, 2024, Case #: 01866, Categories: Fraud, securities, Class Action
J. Christiansen Forster finds that the district court properly adjusted the $100 monthly restitution payments defendant was making toward a $50,000 total. The new $1,100 monthly payments, which were based on an updated financial declaration, changed only the payment schedule, not the underlying restitution order or the original sentence, so statute, double jeopardy or due process rights were not violated. Affirmed.
Court: Utah Court Of Appeals, Judge: Christiansen Forster, Filed On: April 4, 2024, Case #: 20230253-CA, Categories: Fraud, Restitution, securities