Robert L Hickok Gay Parks Rainville

September 02, 2014 | The Legal Intelligencer

On Aug. 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision that helps clarify the territorial reach of the anti-retaliation provision of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 15 USC Section 78u-6(h). In Liu Meng-Lin v. Siemens AG, No. 13-4385 (2d. Cir. Aug. 14, 2014), the court held that Congress did not intend the provision to apply extraterritorially to claims by a foreign whistleblower employed abroad by a foreign corporation where all events related to the whistleblower's disclosures occurred outside the United States. After affirming the district court's dismissal of Liu Meng-Lin's retaliation claim against Siemens AG on this ground, the court declined to address the additional argument advanced by Siemens that the Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation provision does not protect whistleblowers, like Liu, who fail to report potential securities violations to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) before the alleged retaliation.

By Robert L. Hickok, Gay Parks Rainville and William A. Liess

7 minute read

June 03, 2014 | The Legal Intelligencer

Recent government investigations and a private lawsuit have turned a spotlight on the securities trading practice known as "high-frequency trading" or HFT. As a result, the practice has become one of the most talked about, yet least understood, subjects in the corporate legal industry.

By Robert L. Hickok, Gay Parks Rainville and Min Choi

8 minute read

December 03, 2013 | The Legal Intelligencer

On Nov. 15, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Halliburton Co.'s second petition for writ of certiorari in the Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton, No. 13-317, securities litigation, this time to consider whether to "overrule or substantially modify the holding of Basic v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), to the extent it allows a presumption of classwide reliance under the fraud-on-the-market theory," and, if the court does not overrule Basic, to decide whether a defendant "may rebut the presumption and prevent class certification by introducing evidence that the alleged misrepresentations did not distort the market price of its stock."

By Robert L. Hickok, Gay Parks Rainville and Min Choi

7 minute read

March 05, 2013 | The Legal Intelligencer

On February 13, U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet of the Southern District of New York issued a potentially groundbreaking opinion dismissing a number of shareholder derivative suits against officers and directors of Facebook Inc. in In re Facebook IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation.

By Robert L. Hickok, Gay Parks Rainville and Joseph W. Jesiolowski

8 minute read

September 03, 2013 | The Legal Intelligencer

Thanks to two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013), and Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton, 131 S. Ct. 2179 (2011), plaintiffs in securities fraud class actions brought under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 do not need to prove two of the essential elements of their claim, loss causation and materiality, at the class certification stage.

By Robert L. Hickok, Gay Parks Rainville and Min Choi

7 minute read

June 23, 2011 | The Legal Intelligencer

Since 2007, there have been two primary approaches for determining whether plaintiffs in securities fraud class actions can invoke, at the class certification stage.

By Robert L. Hickok, Gay Parks Rainville and Matthew D. Janssen

8 minute read