On October 23, 2008, in a much-anticipated decision addressing what it called "the vexing question of the extraterritorial application of the securities laws," the Second Circuit in the National Australia Bank (NAB) case ruled (here) that U.S. courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of foreign claimants in that case who bought
Global Bailouts, U.S. Lawsuits?
The calamity that began as a U.S.-based subprime mortgage meltdown has now grown into a global financial crisis that has resulted in bankruptcies and bailouts involving some of the world’s largest financial institutions. Along the way, these financial institutions’ investors have seen their investment interests damaged or destroyed, leaving many angry and aggrieved. If a
Headline News: Settlements, Lawsuits, Dismissals
About the UnitedHealth Group Class Action Settlement: UnitedHealth Group announced on July 2, 2008 (here) that it reached an agreement to settle its high profile options backdating-related securities class action lawsuit for $895 million. A July 3, 2008 Law.com article discussing the settlement can be found here.
Not only is this
Another Court Restricts Foreign Claimants’ Access
In prior posts (refer here), I have discussed the increasing reluctance of U.S. courts to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over securities claims against foreign-domiciled companies brought by foreign claimants who bought their shares on foreign exchanges (so-called “f-cubed” claimants).
In the most recent example of this, Judge Thomas Griesa of the
A “Global” Approach to Securities Settlement?
The parties in the SCOR Holding (Switzerland) AG class action securities litigation seem to have devised a “global” settlement strategy to resolve the problems arising from the cross-border distribution of would-be class members.
First, some background. The lawsuit relates to alleged misrepresentations and omissions purportedly made by SCOR Holding’s predecessor in interest, Converium. Converium was domiciled