Last fall the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed, as improvidently granted, the writ of certiorari in two pending securities lawsuits, including in the Meta Platforms/Facebook case (as discussed here). The Court’s dismissal of the writ of certiorari in the Facebook case had obvious implications for the immediate litigants in the case, as it left the prior circuit court ruling standing. But the dismissal also has important implications for litigants in other cases involving the same issues as were raised in the Facebook case.
In the following guest post, Sarah Abrams, Head of Claims Baleen Specialty, a division of Bowhead Specialty, considers the implication for those other litigants in those other cases in light of the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the writ of certiorari in the Facebook case. I would like to thank Sarah for allowing me to publish her article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors in topics of interest to this site’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Sarah’s article.Continue Reading Guest Post: Location, Location, Location
The case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court was to consider the applicability of the PSLRA’s discovery stay in state court ’33 Act actions has been suspended by the Court at the parties’ request. The parties apparently have reached a tentative settlement of the underlying matter and jointly requested that the Court hold the matter in abeyance, pending the parties’ efforts to complete settlement documentation.
In March 2018, when the U.S. Supreme Court held in the Cyan case that state courts retain jurisdiction for securities class action litigation under the ’33 Act, it set up the state courts and state court securities class action litigants for a host of practical problems. The first is that Cyan allowed the possibility of competing sets of plaintiffs’ lawyers to sue the same defendants in parallel state and federal lawsuits, in what can only be called inefficient and wasteful duplicative litigation. The second is that Cyan left unanswered many questions about the procedures applicable in the state court securities litigation, including questions having to do with the applicability of the procedural safeguards under the PSLRA. Among the many procedural questions that state courts now have to wrestle with is whether the PSLRA’s stay of discovery pending a ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss applies to state court proceedings.
In the following guest post, Dan Gold, Thad Behrens, Kit Addleman, Emily Westridge Black, Carrie L. Huff, Timothy Newman, Matt McGee, and Odean L. Volker of the Haynes and Boone, LLP law firm review the key developments during 2019 in securities litigation and enforcement, including significant securities related decisions by the Supreme Court and federal appellate courts, key developments in SEC enforcement, and significant rulings in state law fiduciary litigation against directors and officers of public companies. A version of this article previously was published as a Haynes and Boone client alert. I would like to thank the authors for their willingness to allow me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article.
When Congress enacted the PSLRA in 1995, one of the goals was to try to deter frivolous litigation. As time has passed, it has also become clear that many of the PSLRA’s procedural reforms also created a structure of incentives for plaintiffs’ lawyers. For example, the PSLRA’s most adequate plaintiff requirement created an incentive for plaintiffs’ lawyers to seek to represent institutional investors. However, according to a recent academic study, with the passage of time, some of the incentives have had a distorted impact, as the incentives motivate plaintiffs’ lawyers to try to get hold of a mega-case “lottery ticket” that will produce a jackpot outcome – for the lawyers. These distortions in turn are creating many of the ills we are now seeing the securities class action litigation arena, justifying, according to the academic authors, another round of securities litigation reform.
In 1995, Congress passed the Private Securities Class Action Reform Act (PLSRA) over President Clinton’s veto in order to try to address perceived securities class action litigation abuses. According to a new report from the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform entitled “A Rising Threat: The New Class Actions Racket That Harms Investors and the Economy,” despite the PSLRA’s reforms, many of the same abuses that led to the PSLRA’s enactment have returned, and as a result the securities class action system is “spinning out of control.” According to the report, the time has come for Congress to intervene again to curb “abusive practices that enable the filing of unjustified actions.” The Institute’s October 23, 2018 report can be found 
As I 
In a unanimous March 20, 2018 opinion written by Justice