Justia Securities Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioners solicited foreign nationals to invest in a cancer-treatment center. A Securities and Exchange Commission investigation revealed they misappropriated the funds. The SEC may seek “equitable relief” in civil proceedings, 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5). The SEC brought a civil action for disgorgement equal to the amount raised from investors. Petitioners argued that the remedy failed to account for their legitimate business expenses. The Ninth Circuit affirmed an order holding Petitioners jointly and severally liable for the full amount.The Supreme Court vacated A disgorgement award that does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims is equitable relief authorized under section 78u(d)(5). Equity practice has long authorized courts to strip wrongdoers of their ill-gotten gains; to avoid transforming that remedy into a punitive sanction, courts restrict it to an individual wrongdoer’s net profits to be awarded for victims. These long-standing equitable principles were incorporated into section 78u(d)(5).If on remand the court orders the deposit of the profits with the Treasury, the court should evaluate whether that order would be for the benefit of investors, consistent with equitable principles. Imposing disgorgement liability on a wrongdoer for benefits that accrue to his affiliates through joint-and-several liability runs against the rule in favor of holding defendants individually liable but the common law permitted liability for partners engaged in concerted wrongdoing. On remand, the court may determine whether Petitioners can, consistent with equitable principles, be found liable for profits as partners in wrongdoing or whether individual liability is required. The court must deduct legitimate expenses before awarding disgorgement. View "Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission" on Justia Law

Petitioners filed suit challenging the SEC's adoption of a Pilot Program, Rule 610T, which was designed to gather data so that the Commission might be able to determine in the future whether regulatory action was necessary.The DC Circuit granted the petitions for review, holding that the SEC acted without delegated authority from Congress when it adopted Rule 610T. The court explained that the Pilot Program emanates from an aimless "one-off" regulation, i.e., a rule that imposes significant, costly, and disparate regulatory requirements on affected parties merely to allow the Commission to collect data to determine whether there might be a problem worthy of regulation. In this case, the Commission acted solely to "shock the market" to collect data so that it might ponder the "fundamental disagreements" between parties affected by Commission rules and then consider whether to regulate in the future. The court held that this was an unprecedented action that clearly exceeded the SEC's authority under the Exchange Act. Accordingly, the court vacated the rule and remanded. View "New York Stock Exchange LLC v. Securities and Exchange Commission" on Justia Law

Ginnie Mae (GM), established by 12 U.S.C. 1717(a)(2)(A) to provide stability in the secondary residential mortgage market and promote access to mortgage credit, guarantees mortgage-backed securities (MBS). FMC, a private corporation, was an originator and servicer of government-guaranteed home mortgages and an issuer of MBS in GM’s program. GM learned of FMC actions that constituted the immediate default of the Guaranty Agreements. FMC undertook an investigation and provided the results to GM, while also complying with SEC requests. GM later terminated FMC from its program. The SEC initiated a civil enforcement action, which terminated in a consent agreement, without FMC admitting or denying the allegations but paying disgorgement and penalties. The Consent Agreement provided that it did not affect FMC’s right to take positions in proceedings in which the SEC is not a party but FMC agreed to not take any action or permit any public statement denying any allegation in the SEC complaint FMC later sued, alleging that GM had breached Guaranty Agreements when it terminated FMC from its program and denied violating those Agreements.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Claims Court’s dismissal. FMC’s breach of contract claims are precluded under the doctrine of res judicata. FMC’s action is essentially a collateral attack on the judgment entered in the SEC action. The SEC and GM are in privity for the purposes of precluding FMC’s claims and “successful prosecution of the second action would nullify the initial judgment or would impair rights established in the initial action.” View "First Mortgage Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals: 1) Whether a stock conversion option that permits a lender, in its sole discretion, to convert any outstanding balance to shares of stock at a fixed discount should be treated as interest for the purpose of determining whether the transaction violates N.Y. Penal Law 190.40, the criminal usury law. 2) If the interest charged on a loan is determined to be criminally usurious under N.Y. Penal Law 190.40, whether the contract is void ab initio pursuant to N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law 5-511. View "Adar Bays, LLC v. GeneSYS ID, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a putative securities class action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. Plaintiff alleged that a medical device company misled the investing public about whether the FDA would approve the company's new aneurysm sealing product.The panel held that allegations that are implausible do not create a strong inference of scienter under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. In this case, plaintiff failed sufficiently to plead facts giving rise to a strong inference that defendants made false or misleading statements either intentionally or with deliberate recklessness. The panel explained that, under the facts alleged, plaintiff's core theory—that the company invested in a U.S. clinical trial and made promising statements about FDA approval, yet knew from its experience in Europe that the FDA would eventually reject the product—has no basis in logic or common experience. Rather, the more plausible inference is that the company made optimistic statements about its prospects for FDA approval. View "Nguyen v. Endologix, Inc." on Justia Law

Section 19(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is not available as a means to challenge the reasonableness of generally-applicable fee rules. At issue in this appeal is whether fees that national securities exchanges charge for access to their "depth-of-book" data violate the Exchange Act.The DC Circuit held that section 19(d)'s text does not contemplate challenges to generally-applicable fee rules, and the remedy and notice provisions are incompatible with a challenge to fee rules that do not target specific individuals or entities. The court exercised its jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. 78y(a) and granted the petitions for review of the Commission's decision, vacated, and remanded for further proceedings. View "The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC v. SEC" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to file an amended securities fraud complaint against the manufacturers of an allegedly defective surgical gown. The court held that plaintiff's proposed amendment would be futile, because he failed to raise a strong inference of collective corporate scienter by (1) relying on the knowledge of employees unconnected to the challenged statements or (2) pleading that the challenged statements concerned a key product with which the company's senior management would be expected to be familiar. View "Jackson v. Abernathy" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court ruling against Paraflon Investments, Ltd. on its state-law misrepresentation claims against Fullbridge, Inc. and its principals, Peter Olson and Candice Olson, holding that there was no clear error in the district court's determinations.Fullbridge sought investments from Paraflon regarding a project involving the production of online training courses. After its investment deteriorated, Paraflon brought suit against Fullbridge and the Olsons in federal district court, alleging federal securities fraud claims and common law claims for, inter alia, negligent misrepresentation,and fraudulent misrepresentation. After the case was transferred to the District of Massachusetts the court ruled against Paraflon, finding that Fullbridge did not knowingly or intentionally make a false statement. Paraflon appealed, challenging the district court's disposition of the state-law misrepresentation claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was no clear error in the district court's determination that Fullbridge had a good faith belief that it had received a lucrative award from a third party related to the project; and (2) there was no clear error in the court's determination that Fullbridge's good-faith belief was objectively reasonable based on its experience with the third-party and what it knew at the time of Paraflon's investment. View "Paraflon Investments, Ltd. v. Fullbridge, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions of securities and wire fraud and conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) there was sufficient evidence to sustain Defendant's convictions and that, to the extent that the jury instructions may have been overbroad, any error was harmless; (2) this Court need not address whether the wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 1343, applies extraterritorially because Defendant was convicted under a proper domestic application of the statute; and (3) the district court correctly determined that it lacked the authority to order the government to lodge Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties requests with the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland to seek evidence that may have been favorable to Defendant's defense. View "United States v. McLellan" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act for failure to state a claim. In this case, plaintiff alleged that John Doe was a member of a group with the IVA defendants and IVA's other clients, and that John Doe's investment management agreement with IVA qualified as an agreement to trade in the securities of an issuer under Section 13(d). Plaintiff further theorized that the IVA defendants’ filing of a Schedule 13D automatically caused John Doe to become a member of a group by "silent acquiescence."The court held that an investment management agreement delegating discretionary investment authority to an investment advisor is not an agreement to trade in the securities of an issuer and, therefore, is not a standalone basis for membership in an insider group. The court also held that such an investment advisor's client does not become an insider group member simply because the advisor has filed a Schedule 13D or deputized a director on an issuer's board. Therefore, the court concluded that clients who have not entered an issuer-specific trading agreement are not liable for disgorgement of short-swing profits solely by virtue of their investment advisor's insider status. View "Rubenstein v. International Value Advisers, LLC" on Justia Law