WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Supreme Court review of a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel’s determination that a general proximate cause test is the proper test for determining loss causation in a securities class action lawsuit brought by shareholders against a solar energy company and certain of its senior executives is warranted because the appellate court’s ruling has expanded a three-way split among the circuits, the defendants argue in an Aug. 6 petition for writ of certiorari (First Solar Inc., et al. v. Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme, et al., No. 18-164, U.S. Sup., 2018 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2840).
NEW YORK — A Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Aug. 17 ruled that a federal district court did not err in dismissing class action claims brought by investors in two feeder funds for Bernard L. Madoff’s massive Ponzi scheme because investors waived their argument on appeal that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) does not apply to their claims, which are based on foreign law (In re Kingate Management Litigation, No. 16-3450, 2nd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22895).
NEW YORK — Two weeks after announcing missed revenue targets and experiencing a resulting drop in stock prices, Nielsen Holdings PLC was named in a putative securities class action in New York federal court on Aug. 8 by a shareholder who claims that the analytics firm misled investors as to costs associated with the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and misrepresented its ability to obtain necessary consumer social media data after the privacy-oriented statute’s recent enactment (Craig Gordon v. Nielsen Holdings PLC, et al., No. 1:18-cv-07143, S.D. N.Y.).
LOS ANGELES — International supply chain UTi Worldwide Inc. will pay $13 million to settle claims that it and certain of its senior executives misrepresented the success of the company’s implementation of its new freight forwarding and financial systems in violation of federal securities laws (Michael J. Angley, et al. v. UTi Worldwide Inc., et al., No. 14-2066, C.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — The Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 8 charged U.S. Rep. Christopher Collins, R-N.Y., his son and the father of his son’s fiancée with violations of federal securities laws in connection with their involvement an insider trading scheme (United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Christopher Collins, et al., No. 18-7128, S.D. N.Y.).
PHILADELPHIA — A Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Aug. 7 affirmed a federal district court’s ruling in a declaratory relief action denying J.P. Morgan Securities LLC’s request to transfer the action pursuant to a forum-selection clause and mandating the broker-dealer to submit to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration (Reading Health System v. Bear Stearns & Co., No. 16-4234, 3rd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21910).
SAN FRANCISCO — Toshiba Corp. asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 3 to stay its mandate remanding the securities class action lawsuit against it to a federal district court pending appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Toshiba Cop., No. 16-56058, 9th Cir.).
NEW YORK — A federal district court erred in dismissing a second amended securities class action complaint for failure to state a claim because shareholders properly showed that a technology company and certain of its officers and directors concealed from investors in violation of federal securities laws that a businessman indicted on fraudulent manipulation of securities claims was a “beneficial owner” of the company, a Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Aug. 2 (Joseph Puddu, et al. v. 6D Global Technologies Inc., et al., No. 17-938, 2nd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21630).
NEW ORLEANS — In a 2-1 opinion, a divided Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Aug. 6 ruled that a federal district court erred in dismissing federal securities law claims against a provider of orthotic and prosthetic patient care services and its former chief financial officer (CFO) because a pension fund has plausibly shown that the former CFO acted with the required scienter in concealing improper accounting of the company’s Medicare reimbursements for its services in violation of federal securities law (Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Vinit K. Asar, et al., No. 17-50162, 5th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21785).
PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge in Pennsylvania on Aug. 2 dismissed a securities class action lawsuit with prejudice, ruling that lead plaintiffs have failed to plead the necessary elements of scienter in claiming that a drug company and certain of its executive officers misled investors about the company’s pain management drug, as well as its chances of receiving “oral-abuse deterrent labeling” (In re Egalet Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 17-390, E.D. Pa., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130009).
PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge in Pennsylvania on July 31 ruled that investors in a securities class action lawsuit against a generic drug company and certain of its senior executives failed to show that the individual defendants acted with the required state of mind necessary to bring a federal securities law claim (John Utesch v. Lannett Co., et al., No. 16-5932, E.D. Pa., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128219).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Wells Fargo Bank NA will pay $2.09 billion to settle claims by the U.S. Department of Justice alleging that the financial institution issued false and misleading statements to shareholders about the investment quality of the subprime loans that were packaged in its residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), according to a settlement agreement reached between the parties on Aug. 1.
SAN FRANCISCO — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 30 affirmed a federal district court’s dismissal of claims against Barclays PLC and one of its subsidiaries for allegedly misrepresenting its ability monitor its Liquidity Cross (LX) dark pool private trading venue, ruling that an investor failed to properly plead reliance with the necessary particularity (Great Pacific Securities, et al. v. Barclays Capital Inc., et al., No. 16-56804, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21044).
NEWARK, N.J. — A federal judge in New Jersey on July 27 granted in part and denied in part two motions to dismiss filed in a securities class action lawsuit against an international pharmaceutical company and certain of its current and former senior executives and directors, ruling that the lead plaintiff in the action has only partially pleaded a plausible claim for violation of federal securities law (Roofer’s Pension Fund v. Papa, et al., No. 16-2805, D. N.J., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125885).
DENVER — Affirming a federal district court’s dismissal of a securities class action, a 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 30 ruled that a lead plaintiff failed to plead any actionable misstatements in violation of federal securities law in arguing that a technology company and certain of its senior officers misrepresented to investors that the company had developed “proprietary hardware and software” and had detected and prevented an attempted hacking attack by a state-sponsored Russian hacking group (David Hampton, et al. v. Root9B Technologies Inc., et al., No. 16-1417, 10th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20977).
NEW YORK — Shareholders filed a pair of securities class actions against social media giant Facebook Inc. and certain of its executive officers in New York federal court on July 27, alleging that the defendants concealed issues with Facebook’s revenue and user growth in violation of federal securities laws (James Kacouris v. Facebook Inc., et al., No. 18-6765; Fern Helms v. Facebook Inc., et al., No. 18-6774, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — A lead plaintiff’s addition of alleged misstatements, references to analyst reports and two expert opinions in its second amended complaint still fail to cure the pleading deficiencies that led to dismissal of the lead plaintiff’s consolidated amended securities class action complaint against an engineered products manufacturer and certain of its current and former executive officers, a federal judge in New York ruled July 25 in granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss and ordering the clerk of courts to close the case (In re Eaton Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 16-5894, S.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125280).
NEWARK, N.J. — A federal judge in New Jersey on July 27 ruled that certain lead plaintiffs in a securities class action lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company, certain of its senior executives and underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) failed to show that they have standing to assert their claims against the defendants but denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims against them to allow the challenged plaintiffs to conduct jurisdictional discovery on the issue (Robin J. Dartell, et al. v. Tibet Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., No. 14-3620, D. N.J., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125643).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — In a July 25 ruling, a federal judge in California held that an investor in a shareholder derivative lawsuit against certain officers and directors of a practice management and electronic health records (HER) software developer for medical and dental care providers failed to show that demand was futile before bringing the lawsuit (Timothy J. Foss v. Craig A. Barbarosh, et al., No. 14-0110, C.D. Calif.).
MINNEAPOLIS — Medtronic Inc. and four individual defendants on July 1 agreed to a $43 million class settlement involving alleged securities violations related to Medtronic’s reporting of risks with the Infuse bone graft device in clinical trials (In Re: Medtronic, Inc., Securities Litigation, No. 13-1686, D. Minn.).