-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Ed Mannino on Hobby Lobby: A Critical But Limited Ruling For Corporate Religious Exercise Claims
- P. C. Outsider on Hobby Lobby: A Critical But Limited Ruling For Corporate Religious Exercise Claims
- Rand Scholet on Alexander Hamilton and American Business
- ny ipad on Fisher v. University of Texas: Affirmative Action for Well-to-Do Minorities?
- Ed Mannino on Tips From John G. Johnson, Philadelphia’s Greatest Lawyer
Archives
- March 2019
- February 2019
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- June 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- June 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- November 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
Categories
- American Actors
- american business
- American History
- American Judges
- American Lawyers
- American Literature
- American Politics
- Antitrust Litigation
- Art
- Business Litigation
- Catholicism
- Civil Rights Litigation
- constitutional litigation
- Criminal Law
- Economics
- Ethics
- Fiction
- Health
- Lawyer-Saints
- Literary Criticism
- Literary Lawyers
- Litigation Tips
- New Mexico History
- Patent Litigation
- Philosophy
- Politics
- Products Liability Litigation
- Religion
- Securities Litigation
- Supreme Court
- Uncategorized
- United States Constitution
Category Archives: Securities Litigation
Liability for False Statements of Opinion Under Section 11 of the 1933 Securities Act
In Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, No. 13-435 (March 24, 2015), the Supreme Court resolved the proper standard by which to determine whether a false statement of opinion is actionable under Section 11 of the … Continue reading
Posted in Business Litigation, Securities Litigation, Supreme Court
Tagged Justice Kagan, liability for false opinions, liability for omissions, Omnicare Inc. v. Laborers District Council, Section 11, securities class actions, Securities Litigation
Comments Off on Liability for False Statements of Opinion Under Section 11 of the 1933 Securities Act
Curbing Agency Power: Is Deference Owed to Agency Interpretations of Criminal Statutes?
Buried at the end of 24 pages of Supreme Court Orders on November 10, 2014 is an intriguing three-page Statement by Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, respecting the denial of certiorari in Whitman v. United States, No. 14-29. Whitman involved a criminal … Continue reading
Posted in Criminal Law, Securities Litigation, Supreme Court
Tagged agency interpretation of criminal statutes, deference to administrative agencies, Supreme Court, Supreme Court securities decisions
Comments Off on Curbing Agency Power: Is Deference Owed to Agency Interpretations of Criminal Statutes?
Supreme Court Rules that Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act Does Not Foreclose State Fraud Actions Not Based on a Covered Security
In Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, Nos. 12-79 et al. (February 26, 2014), the Supreme Court held, by a seven-to-two margin, that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (“SLUSA”) did not bar a state law fraud action in which … Continue reading
Posted in Securities Litigation, Supreme Court
Tagged Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, Securities Litigation, Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, state law fraud actions, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Supreme Court Rules that Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act Does Not Foreclose State Fraud Actions Not Based on a Covered Security
Is the Basic Inc. v. Levinson Presumption of Reliance in Trouble?
In today’s decision in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, the Supreme Court held, by a 6 to 3 margin, that securities class plaintiffs need not first demonstrate materiality in order to obtain certification of their claims. While this … Continue reading
Posted in Securities Litigation
Tagged #Scotus, Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, Basic, fraud on the market presumption, Inc. v. Levinson, presumption of reliance, reliance, securities class actions
Comments Off on Is the Basic Inc. v. Levinson Presumption of Reliance in Trouble?