Justia Securities Law Opinion Summaries

Greenblatt, the “bad boy of Chicago arbitrage” became involved in litigation concerning use of his “web of corporations,” including Loop Corporation and Banco. In 2000, Banco extended a $9.9 million line of credit in exchange for a blanket lien over Loop’s assets. Loop defaulted; nevertheless, Banco expanded the line of credit by several million dollars in 2002 and continued lending Loop money until 2004. Banco lost senior creditor status when the district court voided the lien in an earlier case. In 2001 Loop purchased millions of shares of EZ Links stock from Golf Venture, giving a promissory note. Loop defaulted; Golf Venture won a judgment of $1.2 million. Also in 2001, a failed margin transaction left Loop indebted to its brokerage firm, Wachovia, in the amount of $1,885,751. Wachovia took Loop to arbitration and won a $2,349,000 award in 2005. Wachovia is still trying to collect. Loop had transferred almost all of its valuable assets to another Greenblatt company, leaving only the EZ Links stock, in possession of Banco, and Banco claimed to have creditor priority over Wachovia. The district vourt pierced Loop’s corporate veil, allowing Wachovia to reach Greenblatt’s assets, and voiding Banco’s lien, and ordered the sale of Loop’s only asset, EZ Links stock. Banco attempted to contest the d decisions. The Seventh Circuit dismissed Banco’s appeal for lack of standing.View "Wachovia Sec., LLC v. Loop Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Michael Hirsch, Robyn Hirsch, and Hirsch, LLP, claimed that they lost money invested in securities that were part of a "Ponzi" scheme. In 2002, plaintiffs' accountant, EisnerAmper LLP, referred them to Marc Scudillo, a financial advisor employed by Amper Financial Services, LLC (AFS), for investment planning. Scudillo also served as a representative for Securities America, Inc. (SAI), a separate corporation that served as a broker-dealer handling securities transactions. Plaintiffs hired Scudillo and invested in a portfolio with a conservative investment strategy. Their relationship was not reduced to a written contract. On Scudillo's recommendation, plaintiffs purchased securitized notes from Medical Provider Financial Corporation (Med Cap) totaling $550,000. Plaintiffs signed two applications with SAI for the purchase of the Med Cap notes. Each SAI application contained an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be arbitrated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). The issue before the Supreme Court in this appeal was whether it was proper to compel arbitration between a non-signatory and a signatory to a contract containing an arbitration clause on the basis that the parties and claims were sufficiently intertwined to warrant application of equitable estoppel. The Supreme Court held that although traditional contract principles may in certain cases warrant compelling arbitration absent an arbitration clause, the relationship of the parties in this case and the claims in dispute here, viewed alone, was insufficient to warrant application of equitable estoppel to compel arbitration.View "Hirsch v. Amper Financial Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Mike Richey sold his interest in Richey Oilfield Construction, Inc. to Nighthawk Oilfield Services, Ltd. Richey remained employed as president of Richey Oil and became a limited partner in Nighthawk. The primary agreements regarding the transaction were a stock purchase agreement, an agreement for the purchase of Richey Oil’s goodwill, and a promissory note. Each of the acquisition agreements contained a forum selection clause naming Tarrant County as the venue for state court actions. When the business did not go as well as the parties had hoped, Richey filed suit in Wise County, where Richey resided, against two Nighthawk executives (together, Relators) for, among other claims, breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, statutory fraud, and violations of the Texas Securities Act. Relators responded by unsuccessfully moving the trial court to transfer venue to Tarrant County or dismiss the suit pursuant to the mandatory venue selection clauses in the acquisition agreements. Relators subsequently sought mandamus relief. The Supreme Court conditionally granted relief, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to enforce the forum selection clauses in the acquisition agreements. View "In re Fisher" on Justia Law

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought a civil enforcement action against Defendant-Appellees GeoDynamics, Inc., its managing director Jeffory Shields, and several other business entities affiliated with Shields, alleging securities fraud in connection with four oil and gas exploration and drilling ventures Shields marketed to thousands of investors as Joint Venture Agreements (JVAs). The district court granted defendants' 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The SEC appealed, contending that despite their labels as JVAs, the investment agreements were actually "investment contracts" and thus "securities" subject to federal securities regulations. Because it could not be said as a matter of law that the investments at issue were not "investment contracts," the Tenth Circuit reversed. View "SEC v. Shields, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant executed several illegal insider trades involving the stock of the supermarket chain Albertson's using material nonpublic information received from an employee of UBS. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's judgment ordering him to disgorge profits from illegal insider trading, enjoining him from further violating the securities laws, and ordering him to pay prejudgment interest on the entire disgorgement amount. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering disgorgement because the court's cases have established that tippers can be required to disgorge profits realized by their tippees' illegal insider trading. This case was distinguishable only insofar as defendant himself executed the fraudulent trades rather than leave that task to a tippee. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's imposition of an injunction on defendant or in its order that he pay prejudgment interest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "SEC v. Contorinis" on Justia Law

BP shareholders filed a class action alleging that the company knowingly, or with deliberate recklessness, made false and misleading statements about the condition of the Alaskan pipelines and BP's pipeline maintenance and leak detection practices prior to and in the wake of the first oil spill. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's partial dismissal of their complaint under federal securities laws. The court concluded that plaintiffs have adequately pled falsity and materiality, as well as scienter for statements regarding the corrosion rate; plaintiffs have adequately pled falsity and materiality, as well as scienter for statements distinguishing the WOA and EOA lines; plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege scienter for statements regarding BP's "World Class" leak detection system and corrosion monitoring program; plaintiffs adequately pled falsity and scienter for an annual report statement regarding compliance with environmental laws and regulations; and when the court considered the allegations holistically and accepted them to be true, the inference that BP was, at the very least, deliberately reckless as to the false or misleading nature of their public statements was at least as compelling as any opposing inference. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Reese v. Malone" on Justia Law

During his time as an investor and owner of the MAAA Trust, which he established in 1992, Teo filed three false Schedule 13D disclosures and failed to file several required 13Ds. After they made a $154,932,011 gross profit on a stock sale, the SEC filed a civil enforcement action asserting violations of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78m (d) and 78j(b) and SEC rules and regulations. The district court granted summary judgment on several rule-violation claims that Teo did not challenge. A jury concluded that Teo violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and that Teo and the Trust violated Section 13(d), Rule 12b-20, Rule 13d-1, and Rule 13d-2. The court held that the Trust violated Section 16(a) and Rule 16a-3. 7. The court ordered disgorgement of more than $17 million, plus prejudgment interest of more than $14 million. The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims: of errors relating to admission of Teo’s guilty plea allocution and an exhibit; that there was insufficient evidence to prove a “plans and proposals” theory of liability; that the general verdict slip created ambiguity on the theory of liability grounding the jury’s verdict; and to the disgorgement order. View "Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Teo" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether a father presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that his transfer of stock to his son was a gift. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that a person seeking to rebut the presumption that a transfer of property from a parent to a child is a gift must show clear and convincing evidence of a contrary intent. That person is limited to evidence antecedent to, contemporaneous with, or immediately following the transfer, and may also adduce proof of statements by the parties concerning the purpose and effect of the transfer. View "Bhagat v. Bhagat" on Justia Law

Signature Properties executed a promissory note payable to JPMorgan Chase Bank. The loan was secured by a mortgage and security interest on Signature's commercial property. The loan was guaranteed by Signature's members (guarantors). JPMorgan later assigned Signature's note and mortgage to LaSalle Bank National Association. A pooling agreement established a mortgage back security wherein LaSalle was identified as trustee and paying agent and J.E. Robert Company as loan servicer for Signature's mortgage loans. After Signature ceased to make payments on the loan, J.E. Robert brought a foreclosure action against Signature. LaSalle subsequently assigned the note to Shaw's New London, and Shaw's was substituted as the plaintiff. The guarantors were then added as defendants. The trial court ordered strict foreclosure of Signature's property and a deficient judgment against the defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly determined that, under the facts of this case, J.E. Robert had standing to institute this foreclosure action in its own name. The Court rejected the remainder of the defendants' claims.View "J.E. Robert Co. v. Signature Props., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of Leap, filed suit against Goldman, seeking to hold Goldman liable under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78p(b), and Rule 16b-6(d), 17 C.F.R. 240.16b-6(d), for Goldman's failure to disgorge "short-swing profits" derived from writing call options on Leap stock. The court concluded that for the purposes of Section 16(b), the expiration of a call option within six months of its writing was to be deemed a "purchase" by the option writer to be matched against the "sale" deemed to occur when that option was written. The court also concluded that Section 16(b) required statutory insider status at the time of both purchase and sale, and so Goldman was not required to disgorge profits where it was a statutory insider only when the options were written, but not when they expired. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim. View "Roth v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al." on Justia Law