Justia Securities Law Opinion Summaries

Appellants, retirement and investments funds, challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment to Medtronic on their securities fraud class action. Appellants alleged a number of securities laws violations related to Medtronic’s INFUSE product, including making false statements and employing a scheme to defraud the market. Section 10b of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), makes illegal the use of a manipulative or deceptive device in connection with the sale or purchase of a security by any instrumentality of interstate commerce. 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. Scheme liability concerns the use of “any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud” and “any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.” 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5(a), (c). In this case, because Appellants could not have discovered with reasonable diligence sufficient information to plead scienter with the particularity necessary to survive a motion to dismiss prior to June 27, 2011, Appellants brought their complaint within the two-year statute of limitations. The court rejected Medtronic's argument that Appellants’ scheme liability claim is barred as a matter of law by Janus Capital Group, Inc., and Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "West Virginia Pipe Trades v. Medtronic, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Archon, alleging breach of contract stemming from Archon's issuance of a Notice of Redemption to holders of outstanding shares of preferred stock. The court concluded that the district court properly held that it lacked federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 because plaintiff did not assert a federal claim, and the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, 15 U.S.C. 77p(d)(1)(A), does not provide an independent basis for federal question jurisdiction over plaintiff's state-law claim. The court also concluded that it lacked diversity jurisdiction over the class action suit under section 1332(d)(2) because of the exception provided in section 1332(d)(9)(C). Finally, the court concluded that the district court properly held that it lacked diversity jurisdiction over plaintiff's individual claim under section 1332(a) and therefore could not exercise section 1367 supplemental jurisdiction over the class members’ claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. View "Rainero v. Archon Corp." on Justia Law

Scottsdale are respondents in an ongoing disciplinary proceeding before FINRA for allegedly selling unregistered securities in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77e, and FINRA Rule 2010. Scottsdale sought an injunction in federal district court before FINRA completed its proceedings, claiming the FINRA proceeding is unauthorized because FINRA may only discipline members for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because Scottsdale can obtain meaningful judicial review of its claim in this court following the appeal process outlined in the Exchange Act, the court held that its challenge to FINRA’s authority is the type of claim Congress intended to be reviewed within the statutory scheme. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and affirmed the judgment. View "Scottsdale Capital Advisors v. FINRA" on Justia Law

In 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission instituted an administrative proceeding against Dawn Bennett and her law firm (collectively, Bennett) to determine whether Bennett had violated the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The Commission assigned the initial stages of the proceeding to an ALJ, and the ALJ scheduled a hearing on the merits of Bennett’s case. Bennett subsequently filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the administrative enforcement proceeding. Specifically, the Complaint alleged that the SEC’s administrative enforcement proceedings violated Article II of the United States Constitution. The district court dismissed the suit on jurisdictional grounds. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that Congress has impliedly divested district-court jurisdiction over the agency action. View "Bennett v. U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission" on Justia Law

In February 2014, appellant-plaintiff Glynn Hotz purchased 16,000 shares of appellee-defendant Galectin Therapeutics, Inc. (“Galectin”), a small biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Norcross, Georgia. The price for Galectin common stock was $17.90 per share. In July 2014, news outlets began to report that Galectin had paid promotional firms to write flattering articles about Galectin and to “tout” Galectin’s stock price. Days later, Galectin’s stock price crashed, losing over half its value, falling from a price of $15.91 per share to $7.10 per share in one day. After suffering stock losses, Hotz filed a consolidated class action complaint against Galectin in May 2015. Hotz appealed the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. Hotz argued: (1) that Galectin made material misstatements and omissions of fact by not disclosing that it had paid the promotional firms to tout Galectin stock; and (2) that certain Galectin officers and directors were liable for the company’s actions in their personal capacity as “controlling persons” of Galectin under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. After thorough review, and with the benefit of oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Hotz v. Galectin Therapeutics, Inc." on Justia Law

The complaint and referenced documents show that Quiznos fast-food franchise had borrowed heavily before its business sharply declined. From 2007 to 2011, Quiznos lost roughly 3,000 franchise restaurants and profitability plunged. With this plunge, Quiznos could no longer satisfy its loan covenants. As a result, Avenue Capital Management II, L.P., “Fortress” (a collective of investment entities) and others could foreclose on collateral, call in debt, or accelerate payments. To avoid a calamity, Quiznos restructured its debt. This securities-fraud matter arose out of the attempt to restructure that debt. Multiple investment funds purchased equity in Quiznos, and despite efforts, Avenue and Fortress sued former Quiznos managers and officers, claiming they had fraudulently misrepresented Quiznos’ financial condition. The district court dismissed the causes of action based on securities fraud based on a failure to state a valid claim. Finding no reversible error in that dismissal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "Avenue Capital Management II, v. Schaden" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, trustees of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., pension fund, filed suit against its investment manager and principals alleging that defendants knew by 1998 that investing with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS) was imprudent; that these defendants breached their fiduciary duty by failing to warn the fund of this fact; that if warned, the fund would have withdrawn the full sum appearing on its 1998 BLMIS account statements; and that prudent alternative investment of that sum would have earned more than the fund’s actual net withdrawals from its BLMIS account between 1999 and 2008. Plaintiffs also filed suit against Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, which acquired the investment manager in 2000, alleging that it knowingly participated as a non‐fiduciary in the fiduciary breach. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and for failure to allege an actual injury sufficient to establish Article III standing under Rule 12(b)(1). The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to show Article III standing where plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged losses in excess of their profits; the increase in pension funds does not constitute a cognizable loss; the court rejected plaintiffs' claim of disgorgement of Simon and Wohl; and the complaint fails to state a claim against BNY Mellon for participation in a breach of fiduciary duty by Ivy, Simon, and Wohl. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Trustees of the Upstate New York Engineers Pension Fund v. Ivy Asset Management" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, defendant Virginia K. Sourlis challenges the district court's judgment in an enforcement action brought by the SEC in connection with public offerings of unregistered shares of stock of defendant Greenstone. The district court granted a motion by the SEC for summary judgment on issues of liability, holding Sourlis--an attorney who wrote a January 11, 2006 opinion letter ("Sourlis Letter") relating to one of the offerings--liable for violating section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), 15 U.S.C. 77e; violating 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5; and aiding and abetting violations of section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, in violation of section 20(e) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78t(e). The Superseding Final Judgment orders Sourlis to pay a total of $57,284.83 as a civil penalty, disgorgement, and prejudgment interest, and permanently bars her from participating in so-called "penny stock" offerings. The court found no error in the district court's determinations of liability and no abuse of discretion in its remedial order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment in Nos. 14-2301 and 15-3978. The court dismissed as moot the SEC's cross-appeal in No. 14-2937. View "SEC v. Sourlis" on Justia Law

Defendant John B. Frohling appeals the district court's judgment in an enforcement action brought by the SEC in connection with public offerings of unregistered shares of stock of defendant Greenstone. The district court granted a motion by the SEC for summary judgment on issues of liability, holding Frohling--who as Greenstone's securities counsel in 2006-2008 wrote, approved, or concurred in 11 opinion letters relating to all of the relevant offerings--liable for violating section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), 15 U.S.C. 77q(a); section 5 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 77e; and section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. The Superseding Final Judgment orders Frohling to pay a total of $204,161.86 as a civil penalty, disgorgement, and prejudgment interest, and permanently bars him from participating in so-called "penny stock" offerings. The court found no basis for reversal and affirmed the judgment. View "SEC v. Frohling" on Justia Law

Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b–5 prohibit undisclosed trading on inside corporate information by persons bound by a duty not to exploit that information for their personal advantage. These persons are also forbidden from tipping inside information to others for trading. The Supreme Court has held (Dirks) that tippee liability hinges on whether the tipper disclosed the information for a personal benefit; personal benefit may be inferred where the tipper receives something of value in exchange for the tip or “makes a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend.” Salman was convicted for trading on inside information he received from Kara, who had received the information from his brother, Maher, a former investment banker at Citigroup. Maher testified that he expected his brother to trade on the information. Kara testified that Salman knew the information was from Maher. While Salman’s appeal was pending, the Second Circuit decided that personal benefit to the tipper may not be inferred from a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend, unless there is “proof of a meaningfully close personal relationship … that generates an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature.” The Ninth Circuit declined to follow the Second Circuit. A unanimous Supreme Court affirmed. When an insider gives a trading relative or friend confidential information, the situation resembles trading by the insider himself followed by a gift of the profits to the recipient. Maher breached his duty to Citigroup and its clients—a duty acquired and breached by Salman when he traded on the information, knowing that it had been improperly disclosed. View "Salman v. United States" on Justia Law