On May 7, 2009, a jury in the Northern District of Illinois entered a mixed verdict finding in plaintiffs’ favor on several counts in the Household International securities fraud securities class action lawsuit, a long-running case with overtones of the current subprime meltdown. Background regarding the case can be found here.
The verdict
As the subprime meltdown has become a more generalized economic crisis, the adverse consequences have moved far beyond the residential real estate sector where the trouble first began. Until recently, however, the worst effects were concentrated in the financial sector. But as Chrysler’s recent bankruptcy filing shows, the turmoil is no longer limited to the
Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch went through, so we will (fortunately) never know what would have happened if the deal had collapsed. But as detailed in the April 23, 2009 letter (
One of the recurring issues in securities litigation is the way the erstwhile class counsel and their clients, the prospective class representatives, come together. In what one federal judge described as a "blatant, shocking conflict of interest," it appears, from testimony at a recent lead plaintiff selection hearing, that the leading plaintiffs’ firms are providing
In prior posts (most recently
Antitrust regulation and securities enforcement each involve entirely separate areas of the law. However, an increasingly frequent follow-on effect of a regulatory investigation for allegedly anticompetitive conduct is an ensuing class action lawsuit under the securities laws. A lawsuit recently filed in the Southern District of New York, which also has some unique characteristics all
The possibility that a conflict of interest could arise when an attorney or law firm simultaneously representes a corporation and one or more of its officers or directors is a a frequently recurring issue. The issue was raised recently, for example, in the civil complaint that former Stanford Financial Group CFO Laura Pendergest-Holt filed against the