FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A federal magistrate judge in Florida on July 18 denied a motion by investors in the Mutual Benefits Keep Policy Trust seeking pre-approval of any future payments that a trustee makes to himself or his firm until the trustee’s “enhanced oversight” of the trust’s servicer “can be investigated and fully understood” in a Securities Exchange Commission lawsuit alleging fraudulent selling of investment interests in life insurance policies.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A federal judge in Tennessee should deny a former Nissan Motor Corp. executive’s motion to reconsider the judge’s ruling allowing securities law claims to proceed against the defendant because the judge has already twice ruled that the allegations against him have been sufficiently pleaded, shareholders argue in a July 13 opposition brief filed in Tennessee federal court.
CARSON CITY, Nev. — A panel of Nevada Supreme Court justices on July 8 overturned two state trial court rulings in a lawsuit stemming from a denial of fair market value for shares of a company that was subject to a corporate merger, ruling that the trial court erred in holding that the company’s shareholders lacked a right to dissent from the merger and seek fair market value for their shares.
By Phillip J. Troyer and Barry R. Temkin
CINCINNATI — A Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals judge on July 12 rejected a convicted fraudster’s motion to recall a Sixth Circuit mandate denying his motion for compassionate release, ruling that the appellant has failed to show that he is entitled to any such relief.
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on July 9 granted a motion for summary judgment filed by a pharmaceutical company and certain of its current and former senior executives in a securities fraud lawsuit stemming from the defendants’ alleged failure to disclose the anticipated resignation of the company’s chief financial officer in the wake of a public offering of stock, ruling that the defendants have sufficiently pleaded negative loss causation.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — TIAA-CREF Individual & Institutional Services LLC has agreed to pay $97 million to settle Securities and Exchange Commission claims alleging that the dually registered investment adviser and broker-dealer violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements and failing to adequately disclose conflicts of interest to clients who invested in certain employer-sponsored retirement plans (ESPs).
DENVER — A federal judge in Colorado on July 12 ruled that a putative shareholder class action against a company that provides oilfield services to the hydraulic fracturing industry could proceed because the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a claim that the company made misleading statements. The plaintiffs seek to recover damages for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 after the company’s share price dropped following its initial public offering (IPO).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Dismissal of federal securities law claims against a Chinese wireless communications technology company, certain of its current and former senior executives and two of its former auditors stemming from their alleged failure to disclose certain related-party transactions is necessary because shareholders have failed to sufficiently plead that any of the company’s financial statements were materially false or misleading, a federal judge in New York ruled July 7.
NEW YORK — Shareholders in a hydraulic fracturing company on July 8 filed a second amended class action complaint in New York federal court contending that the company’s officers violated federal securities laws by “knowingly, or at least recklessly” making false and misleading statements to investors.
NEW YORK — The Securities and Exchange Commission sued a health care company and two of its senior executives in New York federal court on July 7, alleging that the defendants issued a series of misrepresentations regarding the company’s ability to “capitalize on the COVID-19 pandemic” in press releases in violation of federal securities laws.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 6 upheld a federal district court’s dismissal of a libertarian think tank’s First Amendment lawsuit against the Securities and Exchange Commission challenging the constitutionality of the commission’s “no-deny” provisions in consent agreements, ruling that the lower court correctly determined that the appellant lacked standing to bring its action.
NEW YORK — A New York federal bankruptcy judge on July 2 authorized holders of federal securities law claims against Chapter 11 debtor Garrett Motion Inc. to file a class claim so the allegations can be litigated in a district court class action, with any monetary recoveries limited to the debtor’s available insurance.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on July 2 granted a petition for certiorari filed by Dell Technologies Inc., a subsidiary and other parties that were sued for securities violations related to the subsidiary’s initial public offering (IPO), in which they asked the court to find that a discovery stay provision in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (Reform Act) applies to securities lawsuits filed in state courts and not just in federal courts, as California trial and appeals courts found.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Petitions seeking review of four Securities and Exchange Commission orders amending the national market system (NMS) were untimely filed under provisions of the Securities Exchange Act because 13 nationally registered stock exchanges filed their challenges 65 days after the SEC orders were entered, a District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled June 29 in dismissing the exchanges’ petition for review.
SAN FRANCISCO — In a 2-1 ruling in a “mixed” securities fraud class action lawsuit against Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (VWAG) and others, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 25 held that a federal district court erred in applying the presumption of reliance standard set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States when it denied VWAG’s summary judgment motion because shareholder allegations “cannot be characterized primarily as claims of omission.”
SEATTLE — Two shareholders of a pharmaceutical company that develops certain treatments for neurological diseases sued the company and its CEO in Washington federal court on June 25, alleging that the company’s use of doctoral research that had previously been conducted by the CEO in developing their treatments was tainted by the CEO’s “scientific misconduct” and that, as a result, the company’s positive statements regarding its business and financial condition were false and misleading pursuant to federal securities law.
PHILADELPHIA — Defendants in a securities class action lawsuit brought by investors of a generic drug company who allege that the company and certain of its current and former executive officers engaged in an illegal price-fixing scheme with competitors asked a federal judge in Pennsylvania on June 23 to grant summary judgment in their favor on lead plaintiffs’ remaining federal securities law claims because the lead plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient evidence that would allow their claims to proceed.
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal district court in California erred in dismissing a California-based company shareholder’s complaint challenging the constitutionality of a state statute that requires California-based companies to elect a certain number of female board members because the shareholder adequately alleged that he has standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to bring his challenge, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled in reversing and remanding on June 21.
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on June 18 granted partial dismissal of federal securities claims brought by a husband and wife against the controlling officer of two media companies stemming from the defendants’ alleged offering of unregistered securities and virtual currency, ruling that although the investors have sufficiently pleaded allegations supporting the defendant’s liability under the Securities Act of 1933, they have failed to sufficiently plead their claim for control-person liability.