IndyMac Coverage Suit Settled, But Oral Argument Will Stay on the Calendar?: As I noted in a recent post (here, second item), the parties in the IndyMac D&O insurance coverage action – that is, the dispute to determine whether or not only a single $80 million tower of insurance applies to the various
Canadian Courts Struggle With Jurisdictional Issues in Securities Suits
The question of when domestic securities laws provide remedies for investors who purchased their shares in foreign companies on foreign exchanges vexed U.S. courts for years until the U.S. Supreme Court sorted out the issues in Morrison v. National Australia Bank. But while the U.S. courts now have the bright line standards of the
Canadian Court Declines to Follow Morrison, Rejects BP’s Bid to Stay Claims of Investors Who Purchased Shares on Non-Canadian Exchanges
In its landmark decision Morrison v National Australia Bank, the U.S. Supreme Court said that the U.S. securities laws do not apply to share transactions that do not take place on U.S. securities exchanges. But do these principles operate the same way in other jurisdiction — would courts in other jurisdictions decline to apply
Side-Stepping Morrison?: Common Law Claims of Investors Who Purchased BP Shares Outside U.S. Survive Dismissal Motion
Since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, would-be claimants who purchased shares of a non-U.S. company outside the U.S. have struggled to find a way to pursue their claims in U.S. courts. Among other things, these claimants have tried to avoid Morrison’s federal securities claim-preclusive effect by
RBS Investors, Closed Out of U.S. Courts, Pursue Claims in the U.K.
As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, investors who purchased their shares in a company’s stock on a non-U.S. exchange are unable to pursue securities claims against the company or its management in U.S. courts. I have long thought these investors’ preclusion from U.S. courts would
Former Satyam Directors Win Dismissal of Securities Claims
Seven former independent directors of Satyam – the Indian company known as the “Indian Enron” due to the high-profile accounting scandal that swamped the firm in 2009 – have secured their dismissal from the U.S. securities litigation the company’s shareholder filed in the scandal’s wake. Southern District of New York Judge Barbara Jones’s January 2
Goldman Sachs, Fabulous Fab, and Morrison’s Second Prong
In its June 2010 decision in the Morrison v. National Australia Bank, the U.S. Supreme Court enunciated a "transactions" test to determine the applicability of the U.S. securities laws. The Court said that the U.S. securities laws apply only to "transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges and domestic transactions in other securities." Lower courts
Carlyle Capital Credit Crisis Securities Suit Dismissed (and Two Other Dismissals)
In an interesting opinion that includes among other things a noteworthy discussion of issues arising under the Morrison v. National Australia Bank case, one of the last securities suits filed as part of the ed credit crisis-related litigation wave has been dismissed. In an August 13, 2012 opinion (here), District of Columbia District
A Way Around Morrison?: Dismissal Denied in Short-Sellers’ State Court Suit Against Porsche
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank presents significant obstacles for claimants who want to pursue securities claims against non-U.S. companies in the U.S courts, as the short sellers who tried to sue Porsche in the Southern District of New York found out—their prior federal court securities suit was dismissed on
Thinking About Morrison’s “Unintended Problems”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s blockbuster opinion in Morrison v National Australia Bank has had an enormous impact, resulting as it has in the dismissal of numerous securities suits involving non-U.S. companies that previously would have been permitted to go foward in U.S. courts. But over time it has become clear that the Supreme Court’s opinion does not