Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
61 results for '* topic:"Securities Litigation"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-07-11
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Federal Government | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Marston
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0779
SEC and defendants sought motions in limine in SEC action asserting defendants violated §§206(1), 206(2) and §209(f) of the Investment Advisers Act and court found some evidence was relevant, other evidence was unduly prejudicial and other evidence of SEC internal communications and examination processes was admissible. Motions granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2022-06-27
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Health Care | Investments and Investment Advisory | State and Local Government
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Bartle
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0716
Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' Securities Act and Securities Exchange Act action asserting material misstatements and omissions of fact regarding fact that CEO was under criminal and civil investigation in Denmark for tax fraud and in changing the way growth revenue was reported without making that change clear to investors and court found plaintiffs sufficiently pled facts to put the issues before a jury. Motion denied.
Publication Date: 2022-04-11
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Marston
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0387
Defendants moved to dismiss lead plaintiff's §10(b) and §20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act action and court found defendants' failure to disclose the true reason for its drug's success made the statements misleading; company was not required to disclose uncharged, unadjudicated wrongdoing and plaintiffs sufficiently identified misleading statements made by all individual defendants except one. Motion denied in part and granted in part.
Publication Date: 2022-01-03
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Federal Government | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Gallagher
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-1509
Both parties moved for summary judgment in plaintiff's action alleging defendants violated §§206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisors Act regarding its 12b-1 fee compensation arrangement and court found there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the adequacy of its disclosures to clients, defendants' affirmative defense under §211(d) failed and plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its §206(4) claim. Motions granted in part, denied in part.
Publication Date: 2021-09-20
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Ambro
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-1084
District court did not err in allowing plaintiff to file a third amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P 15 because relation back could make the pleading timely and not futile and defendants had no right to rely on the right to repose as long as plaintiff's action was pending. Affirmed.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2021-07-12
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Food and Beverage | State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Jubelirer
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0792
Minority shareholder who held director and officer positions and directed company finances properly found to have "control" and therefore qualified as an affiliate personally liable for company's securities violations. Order of the Pennsylvania Banking and Securities Commission affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Publication Date: 2021-06-28
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Justice Fuentes
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Hung G. Ta and JooYun Kim (Hung G. Ta, Esq. PLLC); Peter Safirstein (Elizabeth Metcalf Safirstein Metcalf LLP)
for defendant: Paul C. Curnin and Craig S. Waldman (Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP); Richard Hernandez (McCarter & English, LLP); Benjamin Sokoly (Winston & Strawn LLP); Joseph L. Motto (Winston & Strawn, LLP); Matthew Petrozziello (Elliot Greenfield Debevoise & Plimpton LLP); Barry A. Bohrer (Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP)
Case Number: 19-3326
Individual Claimants Need Not Wait for Class Certification Ruling to Utilize American Pipe Tolling to File Individual Actions
Publication Date: 2021-06-17
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Fuentes
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-3326
Plaintiffs, individual shareholders of defendant, appealed from the dismissal of their complaint against defendant.
Publication Date: 2021-06-09
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Scirica
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Blake A. Bennett, Cooch & Taylor, Wilmington, DE; Adam Frankel, Greenwich Legal Associates, Greenwich, CT; Juan E. Monteverde, Miles D. Schreiner, Monteverde & Associates, New York, NY for appellant.
for defendant: Lewis R. Clayton, Paul A. Paterson, Justin Ward, Paul Weiss, Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, New York, NY; Daniel A. Mason, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, Wilmington, DE for appellee.
Case Number: D69423
Proxy statement in support of shareholder approval of merger was not materially misleading where share values were expressly identified as the calculations of the company's financial advisor, rather than statements of fact, and the proxy identified the projections that were used to calculate each particular set of share values.
Publication Date: 2021-04-05
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Software | Transportation
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
Judge: Judge Linhardt
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-0317
Where petitioner was not a record holder of shares in the respondent company at the time he served a verified demand to review financial records, he was not a shareholder within the meaning of 15 Pa.C.S. §1508(b) and, thus, lacked standing to enforce the statute against respondent. The court granted paternal grandmother's petition to intervene.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read