Justia Securities Law Opinion Summaries

A publicly traded reinsurance company experienced significant financial losses over a two-year period due to adverse developments with its largest client, which led to higher-than-expected claim payouts and a dramatic drop in its stock price. Investors, represented by a pension trust and a bank, alleged that the company committed securities fraud by making misleading statements about the adequacy of its reserve funds. Specifically, they claimed the company failed to disclose historical data indicating that its reserves were insufficient, even though it knew of this adverse information.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey initially denied the company’s motion to dismiss, allowing limited discovery focused on whether the company intentionally omitted the historical loss ratio information. The Magistrate Judge restricted discovery to a narrow scope, declining to require production of all underlying data, and the District Court affirmed this limitation. After this limited discovery, the District Court granted summary judgment for the company, holding that the reserve statements were not misleading as a matter of law because the company had considered the historical data and the omitted information did not “totally eclipse” other factors in the reserve calculations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the District Court erred in its application of the materiality standard and in denying further discovery. The Third Circuit found that there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the omission of adverse historical data was material to investors, given the company’s dependence on its largest client and the significance of historical trends in its reserve-setting process. The court vacated the summary judgment and remanded for full discovery and further proceedings, clarifying that materiality is a context-specific inquiry and that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to proceed. View "Boilermaker Blacksmith National Pension Trust v. Maiden Holdings Ltd" on Justia Law

A group of institutional investors brought a class action lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company and several of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws after the company’s share price dropped significantly following the rejection of a takeover bid and subsequent negative financial disclosures. One large investor, Sculptor, intended to pursue its own individual lawsuit rather than participate in the class action. The District Court certified the class and issued a notice specifying the procedure and deadline for class members to opt out. Although Sculptor intended to opt out, its counsel failed to submit the required exclusion request by the deadline. Both Sculptor and the company proceeded for years as if Sculptor had opted out, litigating the individual action and treating Sculptor as an opt-out plaintiff.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey later approved a class settlement, which prompted the discovery that Sculptor had never formally opted out. Sculptor then sought to be excluded from the class after the deadline, arguing that its conduct showed a reasonable intent to opt out, that its failure was due to excusable neglect, and that the class notice was inadequate. The District Court rejected these arguments, finding that only compliance with the court’s specified opt-out procedure sufficed, that Sculptor’s neglect was not excusable under the relevant legal standard, and that the notice met due process requirements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Third Circuit held that a class member must follow the opt-out procedures established by the district court under Rule 23; a mere “reasonable indication” of intent to opt out is insufficient. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying Sculptor’s late opt-out request and concluded that the class notice satisfied due process. View "Perrigo Institutional Investor Group v. Papa" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in state court against Defendants, alleging violations of state securities laws. Defendants removed the case to federal court under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), arguing that the case involved covered securities. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to exclude any claims related to covered securities, leading the district court to remand the case to state court. After three years of state court litigation, Defendants removed the case again, citing an expert report that allegedly identified covered securities. The district court remanded the case again and awarded Plaintiffs $63,007.50 in attorneys' fees.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina initially denied Plaintiffs' motion to remand but later granted it after Plaintiffs amended their complaint. The court found that the amended complaint excluded any claims related to covered securities, thus SLUSA did not apply, and no federal question remained. After Defendants removed the case a second time, the district court remanded it again and awarded attorneys' fees, finding the second removal lacked a reasonable basis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's award of attorneys' fees. The court held that the second removal was improper because the amended complaint explicitly excluded claims related to covered securities, and thus SLUSA did not apply. Additionally, the court found that the removal was objectively unreasonable, as the district court had already addressed the issues in its first remand order. The Fourth Circuit also denied Plaintiffs' request for additional attorneys' fees for defending the appeal, stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) does not authorize fee awards on appeal. View "Black v. Mantei & Associates, Ltd." on Justia Law

AST & Science LLC, a company in the satellite technology and communications business, hired Delclaux Partners SA to introduce it to registered broker-dealers for investment purposes. Delclaux introduced AST to LionTree Advisors LLC, which handled AST's Series A financing. Two contracts were involved: a Finder’s Fee Agreement between AST and Delclaux, and a separate agreement between AST and LionTree. After the Series B financing, Delclaux claimed it was owed fees from four transactions, which AST refused to pay, leading to AST suing Delclaux for breach of contract, alleging Delclaux acted as an unregistered broker-dealer.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied summary judgment on AST’s complaint and granted summary judgment to AST on Delclaux’s counterclaim. Delclaux appealed, but the appeal was voluntarily dismissed due to jurisdictional questions. The district court later held that it lacked diversity jurisdiction but claimed federal-question jurisdiction, asserting that the case involved a federal issue regarding the Securities Exchange Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the district court’s assertion of federal-question jurisdiction. The appellate court held that the breach-of-contract claim was governed by state law and did not meet the criteria for federal-question jurisdiction under the Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing test. The court found that the federal issue was not substantial enough to warrant federal jurisdiction. Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "AST & Science LLC v. Delclaux Partners SA" on Justia Law

Raymond Vuoncino, a corporate-finance professional, worked for U.S. Pipe Fabrication, LLC (Fabrication). After Fabrication implemented new accounting practices for inter-company sales, Vuoncino objected to these practices as potentially fraudulent. Subsequently, he was fired by an executive of Fabrication’s parent company, Forterra, Inc. Vuoncino sued Fabrication, Forterra, and two Forterra executives, alleging violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s anti-retaliation provision.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed Vuoncino’s first amended complaint for failure to state a claim, denied his motion for leave to amend his complaint, and denied reconsideration of those orders. Vuoncino appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Vuoncino’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, finding the proposed amendments were time-barred and did not relate back to the original complaint. The court also affirmed the district court’s denial of reconsideration, noting that Vuoncino’s motion rehashed previously rejected arguments and did not present newly discovered evidence.However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act claim against Fabrication, concluding that Vuoncino’s first amended complaint plausibly alleged that Fabrication employed him. The court found that Vuoncino’s allegations, taken as true, were sufficient to raise a plausible inference that he was a Fabrication employee. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act claims against Forterra, Bradley, and Kerfin, as Vuoncino failed to sufficiently plead that these defendants were his employer’s alter ego or that he could sue Forterra directly without establishing an employment relationship.The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Vuoncino v. Forterra" on Justia Law

Timothy Barton was involved in a scheme to develop underutilized land with loans from Chinese nationals. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice initiated parallel civil and criminal proceedings against Barton and his associates, alleging violations of antifraud provisions of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. The SEC sought a receivership to preserve lenders' assets, leading to various district court orders imposing and administering a receivership and freezing Barton’s assets. Barton appealed these orders and requested reassignment of the case on remand.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas initially imposed a receivership, which Barton appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the receivership order, finding that the district court used the wrong standard and that the receivership's scope was too broad. On remand, the district court applied the correct standard from Netsphere, Inc. v. Baron and reimposed a receivership, including entities that received or benefited from assets traceable to Barton’s alleged fraudulent activities. Barton again appealed, challenging the district court’s jurisdiction, the decision to appoint the receiver, the scope of the receivership, the administration of the receivership, and the preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition and scope of the receivership and the grant of a preliminary injunction. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s actions and dismissed Barton’s appeal of certain orders administering the receivership for lack of jurisdiction. The court also denied Barton’s request to reassign the case to another district-court judge, finding no basis for reassignment. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Barton" on Justia Law

A publicly traded company, CoreCivic, which operates private prisons, faced scrutiny after the Bureau of Prisons raised safety and security concerns about its facilities. Following a report by the Department of Justice's Inspector General highlighting higher rates of violence and other issues in CoreCivic's prisons compared to federal ones, the Deputy Attorney General recommended reducing the use of private prisons. This led to a significant drop in CoreCivic's stock price and a subsequent shareholder class action lawsuit.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, early in the litigation, issued a protective order allowing parties to designate discovery materials as "confidential." This led to many documents being filed under seal. The Nashville Banner intervened, seeking to unseal these documents, but the district court largely maintained the seals, including on 24 deposition transcripts, without providing specific reasons for the nondisclosure.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court emphasized the strong presumption of public access to judicial records and the requirement for compelling reasons to justify sealing them. The court found that the district court had not provided specific findings to support the seals and had not narrowly tailored the seals to serve any compelling reasons. The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's order regarding the deposition transcripts and remanded the case for a prompt decision in accordance with its precedents, requiring the district court to determine if any parts of the transcripts meet the requirements for a seal within 60 days. View "Grae v. Corrections Corp. of Am." on Justia Law

Gina Champion-Cain operated a Ponzi scheme through her company ANI Development, LLC, defrauding over 400 investors of approximately $389 million. The SEC initiated a civil enforcement action, freezing Cain’s and ANI’s assets, appointing a receiver for ANI, and temporarily staying litigation against ANI. Defrauded investors then sued third parties, including Chicago Title Company and the Nossaman law firm, alleging their involvement in the scheme.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California approved a global settlement between the Receiver and Chicago Title, which included a bar order preventing further litigation against Chicago Title and Nossaman related to the Ponzi scheme. Kim Peterson and Ovation Fund Management II, LLC, whose state-court claims against Chicago Title and Nossaman were extinguished by the bar orders, challenged these orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court had the authority to enter the bar orders because the claims by Peterson and Ovation substantially overlapped with the Receiver’s claims, seeking recovery for the same losses stemming from the Ponzi scheme. The bar orders were deemed necessary to protect the ANI receivership estate, as allowing the claims to proceed would interfere with the Receiver’s efforts and deplete the receivership’s assets.The Ninth Circuit also concluded that the Anti-Injunction Act did not preclude the bar orders, as they were necessary in aid of the district court’s jurisdiction over the receivership estate. The court rejected Peterson’s argument that the bar order was inequitable, noting that Peterson had the opportunity to file claims through the receivership estate but was determined to be a net winner from the Ponzi scheme. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s bar orders. View "USSEC V. CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY" on Justia Law

Eido Hussam Al-Nahhas, an Illinois resident, took out four loans from Rosebud Lending LZO, operating as ZocaLoans, with interest rates up to nearly 700%, far exceeding Illinois law limits. Al-Nahhas alleged that ZocaLoans was a front for two private equity firms, 777 Partners, LLC, and Tactical Marketing Partners, LLC, to evade state usury laws by claiming tribal sovereign immunity through the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. He sued ZocaLoans and the firms for violating Illinois usury statutes and the federal Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act.The defendants participated in litigation for fourteen months, including filing an answer, engaging in discovery, and attending status conferences. They later sought to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision in the loan agreements. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the motion, finding that the defendants had waived their right to compel arbitration by participating in litigation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the defendants waived their right to arbitrate through their litigation conduct. The court also found that the case was not moot despite the settlement between Al-Nahhas and ZocaLoans, as punitive damages were still at issue. The court granted the parties' motions to file documents under seal. View "Hussam Al-Nahhas v 777 Partners LLC" on Justia Law

Frank Harmon Black and his securities investment firm, Southeast Investments, N.C., Inc., are involved in an ongoing disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) in September 2015. The proceedings were based on allegations that Black and Southeast failed to establish and maintain an adequate broker supervisory system, failed to preserve business-related electronic correspondence, and submitted false documents and testimony to FINRA examiners, violating FINRA rules and federal securities laws. In March 2017, a FINRA hearing panel found Black and Southeast in violation of these rules and imposed fines and sanctions, including barring Black from associating with other FINRA member firms.Black and Southeast appealed the FINRA decision to the National Adjudicatory Council (NAC), which affirmed the findings but reduced the fines in May 2019. They then petitioned the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for review. On December 7, 2023, the SEC affirmed the NAC's decision regarding the supervisory and record retention violations but remanded the false testimony and fabricated documents issues to FINRA for further proceedings, determining that FINRA's failure to produce certain investigatory notes was not a harmless error.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the SEC's decision. The court concluded that the SEC's decision was not a final order because it remanded part of the case to FINRA for further proceedings. As a result, the court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the petition and dismissed it. The court emphasized that a final order must mark the consummation of the agency's decision-making process and result in legal consequences, which was not the case here. View "Black v. Securities and Exchange Commission" on Justia Law