NEW ORLEANS — A Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel should allow a federal district court’s dismissal of claims in a shareholder class action lawsuit brought against Six Flags Entertainment Corp. and two of its former senior executives stemming from the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations regarding the company’s theme park expansion in China to stand because the district court correctly applied Fifth Circuit law in discounting the scienter allegations provided by two former Six Flags employees, Six Flags and former executives argue in a Nov. 24 appellee brief filed in the appellate court.
PASADENA, Calif. — Following an insured’s motion to voluntarily dismiss, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 22 dismissed the insured’s appeal in a dispute over whether an insurer was obligated to fund a settlement reached in underlying backdating litigation.
ALBANY, N.Y. — A majority of the New York Court of Appeals on Nov. 23 reversed an appeals court’s ruling in favor of insurers in a lawsuit seeking indemnification for claims stemming from Bear Stearns' settlement of Securities and Exchange Commission and New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) regulatory proceedings and private litigation over claims that it facilitated customers' deceptive market timing and late trading activities, finding that the settlement payment was not excluded from coverage as a “penalt[y] imposed by law” under the insurance policies.
NEW YORK — A Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel should have remanded a challenge to a New York federal court’s grant of a new trial for application of a new standard rather than applying that standard itself, a former hedge fund executive argues in a Nov. 22 letter citing the appellate court’s Nov. 19 decision in United States v. Jabar.
NEW YORK — A federal district court erred in dismissing claims brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in a shareholder class action lawsuit against a Chinese internet company and its senior officials for failure to meet the necessary pleading requirements of those claims because the shareholders sufficiently alleged a misstatement or omission of material fact in asserting that the defendants misrepresented their intentions to relist the company following a shareholder buyout, a Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Nov. 24 in reversing and remanding.
GREENBELT, Md. — An investor filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit against several executives officers and directors of biopharmaceutical company Novavax Inc. in Maryland federal court on Nov. 22, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty by failing to disclose that manufacturing issues would delay the production and government approval of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate.
SAN DIEGO — A federal judge in California on Nov. 18 ruled that the lead plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit against a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company and certain of its senior executives has failed to sufficiently plead that the defendants’ alleged misstatements regarding the company’s development of a “cure” for COVID-19 were materially misleading or made with the required state of mind as required in pleading their federal securities law claims.
NEW ORLEANS — A Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel should affirm a federal district court’s judgment granting a court-appointed receiver’s request for prejudgment interest and costs in a clawback lawsuit stemming from R. Allen Stanford’s massive Ponzi scheme because investors failed to offer any sufficient basis showing that denial of prejudgment interest, costs or attorney fees was warranted, the receiver argues in a Nov. 19 appellee brief.
WILMINGTON, Del. — A federal judge in Delaware on Nov. 15 dismissed claims in a shareholder derivative action against a semiconductor manufacturer’s current and former directors, ruling that shareholders failed to sufficiently plead that the defendants issued any materially misleading statements in the company’s 2019 or 2020 proxy reports.
NEW YORK — Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley used material, non-public information to unload a large number of shares of a Chinese online retailer and avoid billions of dollar in losses in violation of federal securities laws, an investor alleges in a class action complaint filed Nov. 15 in New York federal court.
ATLANTA — An 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Oct. 21 denied a request by defendants in a securities fraud criminal action to overturn their convictions, ruling that government prosecutors provided sufficient evidence to support the convictions on both the substantive and conspiracy counts against those defendants.
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal district court did not err in dismissing shareholder claims against graphics processing unit (GPU) manufacturer NVIDIA Corp. and certain of its senior executives stemming from alleged misstatements the defendants made pertaining to the impact of cryptocurrency mining on the company’s revenues because the court correctly determined that the shareholders failed to properly plead any material misrepresentation or omission or scienter in bringing their federal securities law claims, NVIDIA argues in a Nov. 10 appellee brief filed in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
CHICAGO — A federal judge in Illinois on Nov. 2 partially granted summary judgment in favor of retail pharmacy chain Walgreen Co. and two of its former senior executives in a shareholder class action alleging that the defendants failed to disclose that the company would not be able to hit its earning goals for fiscal year 2016 after merging with another pharmacy company, ruling that several of the defendants’ alleged misstatements were not actionable.
NEW YORK — The recently appointed lead plaintiffs in a putative securities class action against a Chinese vaping company on Nov. 9 filed their second amended complaint contending that the company overestimated financial prospects before its initial public offering (IPO) by misrepresenting Chinese regulations for e-cigarette products.
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — A federal jury in Connecticut on Nov. 1 concluded that lead plaintiffs in a securities class action against the founder of two cryptocurrency companies and the companies themselves failed to sufficiently plead that the defendants violated state or federal securities laws when they sold virtual currency because the products were not investment contracts.
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on Nov. 8 granted preliminary approval of a proposed $18 million securities class action settlement against movie theater chain operator AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc., certain of its senior executives and board members and underwriters of its secondary public offering, ruling that the proposed settlement has preliminarily met the statutory requirements for approval.
NEW YORK — Ruling that the evidence did not preponderate heavily against the jury verdict, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 5 vacated a New York federal court’s grant of new trials to two former hedge fund executives who were convicted of charges including securities fraud in an alleged scheme that involved a reinsurer and related entities; the panel also vacated a judgment of acquittal against one of the former executives.
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A federal judge in California on Nov. 2 granted preliminary approval of a $16 million securities class action settlement against a manufacturer of dental aligners and certain of its executive officers stemming from alleged misrepresentations the defendants made regarding the impact expiring patents on the company’s business and financial condition in violation of federal securities laws, ruling that the proposed settlement preliminarily meets all statutory requirements for approval.
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Preliminary approval of a proposed $11 million cash settlement in a securities class action against an online marketplace, several of its executive officers and directors and underwriters of the marketplace’s initial public offering (IPO) stemming from the defendants’ alleged issuance of a materially misleading registration statement for the IPO is warranted because the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and meets all statutory requirements for approval, shareholders argue in a Nov. 5 motion filed in California federal court.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 8 declined review of a federal appellate court’s ruling that the Securities and Exchange Commission was exercising its authority under provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 when it filed an enforcement action against a broker-dealer stemming from the defendant’s alleged failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA).