Justia Securities Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, representatives of a class of investors that purchased stock in Apollo, filed suit alleging, among other things, that defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, 15 U.S.C. 78j and 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5, by making false and misleading statements of material fact regarding Apollo's enrollment and revenue growth, financial condition, organizational values, and business focus. The district court dismissed the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that the material misrepresentations plaintiffs alleged in Counts I, III, and IV of the Amended Complaint are not objectively false misstatements, but are examples of lawful business puffing; moreover, plaintiff failed to plead scienter or loss causation; Count II contains largely conclusory allegations that Apollo improperly recorded student revenue; plaintiffs' allegations that defendants are guilty of insider trading fail to state a claim because the alleged non-public information to which defendants had access is the same information at issue in Counts I, II, and III, and IV of the Amended Complaint; and plaintiffs cannot establish control person liability. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "OR Pub. Emp. Ret. Fund v. Apollo Group" on Justia Law

Accretive provides cost control, revenue cycle management, and compliance services to non-profit healthcare providers. Accretive and Fairview entered into a Revenue Cycle Operations Agreement (RCA), accounting for about 12% of Accretive’s revenue during the class period, and a Quality and Total Cost of Care (QTCC) contract, promoted as the future for healthcare services. In 2012, the Minnesota Attorney General sued Accretive for noncompliance with healthcare, debt collection, and consumer protection laws. Accretive wound down its RCA contract short of its term, expecting a loss of $62 to $68 million. The AG released a damaging report on Accretive’s business practices. Fairview cancelled its QTCC contract. Accretive’s stock fell from over $24 to under $10 per share. Plaintiffs filed a class action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that Accretive concealed its practices to artificially inflate its common stock. The parties negotiated a settlement of $14 million: $0.20 per share ($0.14 with attorneys’ fees and expenses deducted). Notice was sent to 34,200 potential class members. Only one opted out; only Hayes filed an objection. At the fairness hearing, the district court granted approval, awarding attorneys’ fees of 30% and expenses of $63,911.14. Hayes did not attend. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Hayes v. Accretive Health, Inc." on Justia Law

When Khazin began working for TD, he signed an employment agreement and agreed to arbitrate all disputes. Khazin was responsible for due diligence on financial products offered by TD . When he discovered that one product was priced in a manner noncompliant with securities regulations, he reported to his supervisor, Demmissie, and recommended changing the price. Demmissie instructed Khazin to analyze the “revenue impact,” which revealed that remedying the violation would save customers $2,000,000, but would cost TD $1,150,000 and negatively impact Demmissie’s divisions. Demmissie allegedly told Khazin not to correct the problem. Demmissie and TD’s human resources department later confronted Khazin about a purported billing irregularity that, he claims, was unrelated to his duties and nonexistent. His employment was terminated. Khazin sued, asserting violation of the Dodd-Frank Act, premised on the allegation that he had been terminated in retaliation for “whistleblowing.” Khazin contended that the Act prevented TD from compelling the arbitration of his whistleblower retaliation claim, 18 U.S.C. 1514A(e)(2). The district court held that the provision did not prohibit enforcement of arbitration agreements executed before Dodd-Frank was passed. The Third Circuit concluded that Khazin’s whistleblower claim is subject to arbitration because it is not covered by the restrictions. View "Khazin v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp" on Justia Law

After petitioner settled a suit in which the Commission filed a civil complaint against him for committing various securities law violations, petitioner agreed in a consent judgment that he would not contest the allegations of the civil complaint in any related administrative proceeding before the Commission. The Commission then commenced a follow-on proceeding against petitioner to determine whether a remedial sanction was in the public interest and ordered that petitioner be permanently barred from the securities industry and from participating in any offering of penny stock. Petitioner sought vacatur of the Commission's order pursuant to Blinder, Robinson & Co. v. SEC. In Blinder, the court emphasized that, in a follow-on sanctions proceeding, the Commission must abide by a "clear distinction" between the district court's determination of a petitioner's liability under the securities laws and evidence about the circumstances surrounding his misconduct. The court concluded that the Commission considered the relevant record, including petitioner's evidence of the circumstances surrounding his misconduct that did not, in effect, seek to challenge the allegations of the complaint. Accordingly, the court deferred to the Commission's choice of sanction and denied the petition for review. View "Siris v. SEC" on Justia Law

BNY Mellon appealed the district court's judgment declaring that the Notice of Special Early Redemption issued by Chesapeake on March 15, 2013, was timely and effective to redeem certain senior notes (the "Notes") at the "Special Price" of 100% of the principal amount, plus interest accrued to the date of redemption. BNY Mellon argued that section 1.7(b) of the Supplemental Indenture authorized redemption at the Special Price only if accomplished no later than March 15, 2013, with notice given 30 to 60 days before, also during the Special Early Redemption Period. The court conclude that the terms of section 1.7 unambiguously terminated Chesapeake's right to redeem the Notes at the Special Price on March 15, 2013. Notice of such redemption needed to be given no later than February 13, 2013. Therefore, the notice given by Chesapeake on March 15, 2013 for redemption to occur on May 15, 2013 was untimely. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions. View "Chesapeake Energy Corp. v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., N.A." on Justia Law

An employee of Halliburton, Anthony Menendez, submitted a complaint to management about the company's questionable accounting practices and also filed a complaint with the SEC. The Review Board subsequently determined that Halliburton's disclosure to Menendez's colleagues of his identity as the SEC whistleblower who had caused an official investigation, resulting in Menendez's workplace ostracism, constituted illegal retaliation under section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), 18 U.S.C. 1514A(a). The court held that to maintain an antiretaliation claim under SOX, as in these circumstances here, the employee must prove that his protected conduct was a contributing factor in the employer's adverse action. The court rejected Halliburton's argument that the Review Board committed legal error by failing to require proof that the company had a wrongful motive. The court rejected Halliburton's contention that the damages awarded to Menendez for emotional distress and reputational harm are not noneconomic compensatory damages available under SOX. The court agreed with the Tenth Circuit that the plain language of SOX's text relating to remedies for retaliation affords noneconomic compensatory damages and this conclusion comports with the decisions of the Seventh and Eighth Circuits respecting essential identical statutory text in the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733. The court concluded that Halliburton failed to show that the Review Board's decision was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Halliburton, Inc. v. Administrative Review Board, Dept. of Labor" on Justia Law

Overstock.Com alleged that defendants intentionally depressed the price of Overstock stock by effecting “naked” short sales: sales of shares the brokerage houses and their clients never actually owned or borrowed to artificially increase the supply and short sales of the stock. The trial court dismissed claims under New Jersey Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act without leave to amend and rejected California market manipulation claims on summary judgment. The appeals court affirmed dismissal of the belatedly raised New Jersey RICO claim and summary judgment on the California claim as to three defendants, but reversed as to Merrill Lynch. The evidence, although slight, raised a triable issue this firm effected a series of transactions in California and did so for the purpose of inducing others to trade in the manipulated stock. The court concluded that Corporations Code section 25400, subdivision (b), reaches not only beneficial sellers and buyers of stock, but also can reach firms that execute, clear and settle trades; such firms face liability in a private action for damages only if they engage in conduct beyond aiding and abetting securities fraud, such that they are a primary actor in the manipulative trading. View "Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc." on Justia Law

Overstock.Com alleged that defendants intentionally depressed the price of Overstock stock by effecting “naked” short sales: sales of shares the brokerage houses and their clients never actually owned or borrowed to artificially increase the supply and short sales of the stock. The parties’ discovery demands were extensive, and, pursuant to a stipulation, the trial court issued a protective order that allowed the parties to designate Protected Material, and to further classify it as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential.” The order required the parties to exercise good faith to restrict submissions to Confidential Information reasonably necessary for deliberations. Two years later, the court extended the order to confidential information pertaining to third parties. In 2011, the court allowed plaintiffs to propose a Fifth Amended Complaint. The publicly filed document and opposing documents were heavily redacted; un-redacted versions were conditionally lodged under seal. Defendants made10 motions to seal. Plaintiffs opposed five. The media also opposed sealing. The court then denied leave to file the proposed Fifth Amended Complaint, granted the motions to seal, and entered summary judgment for the defendants. The appeals court affirmed most of the sealing decisions, with exceptions for “irrelevant materials” that never should have burdened the court. View "Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc." on Justia Law

Escala shareholders sued financial institutions that engage in equity trading, alleging that the defendants participated in “naked” short selling of Escala stock, which “increased the pool of tradable shares by electronically manufacturing fictitious and unauthorized phantom shares.” Plaintiffs claim dilution of voting rights and decline in value. All claims were under New Jersey law: the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, based on predicate acts of state securities fraud and theft, and common law claims for unjust enrichment, interference with economic advantage and contractual relations, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to remand to state court. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that there is no federal-question jurisdiction. Short sales are subject to detailed federal regulation. New Jersey does not have an analogous provision, but whether the naked short selling at issue violated state law requires no reference to federal regulation SHO. The success of those claims does not “necessarily” depend upon federal law, so the case does not “arise under” the laws of the United States. Regulation SHO’s exclusive jurisdiction provision does not change the analysis; such provisions cannot independently generate jurisdiction. View "Manning v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc." on Justia Law

The district court approved a settlement agreement between representative plaintiffs and Bank of America in a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq., and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. The underlying litigation stemmed from Bank of America's negotiations with Merrill Lynch in 2008, which resulted in the two financial institutions merging in 2009. The court concluded that the district court did not violate the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(2)(A)(vi), 78u-4(a)(4), when it awarded reimbursement costs to representative plaintiffs; the notice of the statement of average amount of damages per share was not constitutionally deficient in violation of appellants' due process rights and the district court did not exceed the bounds of its discretion in approving the notice; the award of attorneys' fees was reasonable and appellants failed to identify any specific abuse of discretion on the part of the district court; and appellants' remaining arguments are without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "In re Bank of America" on Justia Law