Circuits Split on Pleading Loss Causation: In a December 16, 2014 opinion written by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. for a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the securities class action lawsuit that had been filed against Apollo Group and certain of its directors and officers. In
Supreme Court to Decide Securities Act Statute of Repose Issue in IndyMac MBS Case
The U.S. Supreme Court has added yet another lawsuit to its growing list of securities law cases by agreeing to take up the IndyMac MBS securities suit, to consider whether the filing of a class action lawsuit tolls the statute of repose under the Securities Act (by operation of so-called “American Pipe” tolling)
U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Yet Another Securities Case: To Support a Section 11 Claim, Must an Opinion Be Subjectively False?
As if it were not enough that the Court is already considering a case that could change the face of securities class actions (that is, the Halliburton case, which will be argued this week), the U.S. Supreme Court has now agreed to take up yet another securities case.
In a March 3, 2014 order
Now Trending: Initial Public Offerings and IPO-Related Securities Suits
Led by Twitter’s successful offering earlier this year, IPO activity in the U.S. during 2013 has been at its highest levels since 2007. While the listing activity seems to bode well for the general economy as well as for the financial markets, the increased number of IPOs has also led to an uptick in IPO-related
Appellate Courts Set Aside Two Securities Suits Dismissals
In two decisions last week – one in the Sixth Circuit and one in the First Circuit – federal appellate courts set aside lower court dismissals of securities class action lawsuits. Although the two cases are different and the two appellate opinions address different legal issues, the two decisions both seem to suggest a similar
So, There’s Concurrent State Court Jurisdiction for ’33 Act Suits, Right? Well…
On May 18, 2011, the California Intermediate Court of Appeals held in the Luther v. Countrywide Financial Corporation case that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts to hear liability lawsuits under the Securities Act of 1933, and that more recent legislative enactments did not eliminate the concurrent state court jurisdiction for the plaintiffs&rsquo
Mortgage-Backed Securities Investors’ Section 11 Claims Dismissed for Lack of “Cognizable Injury”
Among the many cases filed as part of the subprime litigation wave are the numerous cases filed on behalf of holders of mortgage-backed securities against the firms that issued the securities. In many of these cases, the plaintiffs have not alleged that they have failed to receive payments due under the securities, but rather they
Dismissal Motion Denied in Massive Citigroup Subprime-Related Bondholder Action
On July 12, 2010, in one of the more high-profile investor actions filed as part of the subprime securities litigation wave, Southern District of New York Judge Sidney Stein substantially denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss in the Citigroup Bond Litigation. A copy of the opinion can be found here.
As
Rating Agencies Are Not ’33 Act “Underwriters”
Rating agencies are not susceptible to ’33 Act liability as "underwriters," even if they helped structure the mortgage backed securities at issue, according to February 1, 2010 ruling (here) by Southern District of New York Judge Lewis Kaplan in which he dismissed Moody’s and McGraw-Hill (S&P’s parent) from the Lehman Brothers Mortgage-Backed Securities
Subprime-Related Section 11 Claim Dismissed
In a January 14, 2010 order (here), Southern District of New York Judge Robert W. Sweet granted the motion to dismiss in the ACA Capital Holdings subprime-related securities class action lawsuit. The decision is noteworthy in and of itself, but also because the plaintiffs’ securities claims were asserted under the ’33 Act. Subprime