Justia Securities Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants held ASI notes that could be converted into shares of stock at either a pre-set price-per-share or a floating price that depended on share price over a defined period prior to conversion. A note was converted into shares, all of which were sold in the week following conversion. ASI, seeking to recoup the profits earned on the sale, sued under the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78p(b), which prohibits statutory insiders such as defendant from profiting on the trade of securities on a short-swing basis. The district court found defendants liable for profits of $4,965,898.95 earned in short-swing insider trading. The Second Circuit affirmed. Rejecting an argument that the relevant transactions were not “purchases” of securities for purposes of the act, but were within the scope of the “debt” and “borderline transaction” exceptions to liability, and that the scope of any liability found should be limited to defendant Cannell’s pecuniary interest in the profits at issue. View "Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P.," on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an attorney admitted to practice in New York, appealed from an order of the district court dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Section 25(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78y(a)(1), provided a comprehensive remedial scheme that required plaintiff to appeal an SEC debarment order to a court of appeals. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that Section 25(a) did, under this Circuit's precedent, supply the jurisdictional route that plaintiff must follow to challenge the SEC action in this case. View "Altman v. SEC, et al." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from the district court's holding that defendants were liable to plaintiff in the total amount of $4,965,898.95 for profits earned in short-swing insider trading and from an order denying defendants' motion for reconsideration. At issue, inter alia, was the rarely-construed "debt exception" to liability under Section 16(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78p(b), and the treatment of "hybrid" derivative securities under Section 16(b). The court agreed with the district court that the acquisition of the 2004 Note was a purchase of a security for purposes of Section 16(b), that the conversion of the 2004 Note was also a Section 16(b) purchase, and that neither of these purchases came within the debt and borderline transaction exceptions to section 16(b) liability. The court further concurred that Tonga and Cannell Capital, in addition to Cannell, were subject to disgorgement of profits, and the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed an order of the district court denying leave to amend its complaint alleging violations of section 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77k, 77l(a)(2), 77o. The proposed complaint alleged that defendant was required to disclose, and failed adequately to disclose, in connection with a March 2006 secondary offering of its securities, known defects in the company's semiconductor chips. The court held that the proposed complaint stated a claim because it plausibly alleged that the defects constituted a known trend or uncertainty that the company reasonably expected would have a material unfavorable impact on revenues. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to permit the filing of the complaint. View "Panther Partners Inc. v. Ikanos Communications, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the dismissal of their amended and second amended complaints for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The two complaints asserted claims for relief against defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78t(a), and S.E.C. Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. Plaintiffs claimed that CBS delayed interim impairment testing of the corporation's intangible assets despite indicia that such a test was necessary at an earlier date. The court affirmed the district court's opinion dismissing the complaints and held that the district court's conclusion was reinforced by Fait v. Regions Fin. Corp. View "City of Omaha v. CBS Corp." on Justia Law

This case arose as part of an industry-wide investigation into certain abuses that contributed to the recent financial crisis. The SEC moved for a stay of district court proceedings, pending resolution of its and Citigroup's interlocutory appeals and its petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking to set aside an order of the district court which refused to approve the parties' proposed consent judgment. The district court so ordered because it concluded that the proposed consent judgment was not fair, adequate, reasonable, or in the public interest because Citigroup had not admitted or denied the allegations. The court concluded that it was satisfied (1) that the SEC and Citigroup have made a strong showing of likelihood of success in setting aside the district court's rejection of their settlement, either by appeal or petition for mandamus; (2) the petitioning parties have shown serious, perhaps irreparable, harm sufficient to justify grant of a stay; (3) the stay would not substantially injure any other persons interested in the proceeding; and (4) giving due deference to the SEC's assessment of the importance of its settlement to the public interest, that interest was not disserved by the grant of a stay. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to stay the proceedings and denied the motion to expedite. View "SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed from an order of the district court granting respondent's motion to quash subpoenas issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782. Petitioner sought assistance from the district court to order discovery from three non-parties for use in a securities fraud action he filed in Germany. The district court allowed the discovery and the relevant subpoenas were issued. However, before any discovery was produced, respondent moved to vacate that order and quash the subpoenas. The district court granted the motion and ruled that the requested discovery could not be "for use" in the German tribunal because it was unlikely to be admitted in the foreign jurisdiction. The court reversed the order, concluding that the "for use" requirement was not limited to the actual receipt of materials into evidence in the foreign proceeding. View "Brandi-Dohrn v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, nine Cayman Island hedge funds, appealed from a judgment of the district court dismissing their complaint with prejudice. At issue was whether foreign funds' purchases and sales of securities issued by U.S. companies brokered through a U.S. broker-dealer constituted "domestic transactions" pursuant to Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. While the court concluded that the complaint did not sufficiently allege the existence of domestic securities transactions, the court concluded that plaintiffs should be given leave to amend the complaint to assert additional facts suggesting that the transactions at issue were domestic. Specifically, the court held that to sufficiently allege the existence of a "domestic transaction in other securities," plaintiffs must allege facts indicating that irrevocable liability was incurred or that title was transferred within the United States. Because there has been significant ambiguity as to what constituted a "domestic transaction in other securities," plaintiffs should have the opportunity to assert additional facts leading to the plausible inference that either irrevocable liability was incurred or that title passed in the United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd., et al. v. Ficeto, et al." on Justia Law

The Bank of New York Mellon, acting in its capacity as trustee of trusts established to hold residential mortgage-backed securities, settled claims that the originator and servicer breached obligations owed to the trusts. Then, as a condition precedent to the settlement, the Bank initiated an Article 77 proceeding in New York Supreme Court to confirm that it had the authority to enter into the settlement under the governing trust documents and that entry into the settlement did not violate its duties under the governing trust agreements. On appeal from an order of the district court denying petitioners' motion to remand the proceeding to New York Supreme Court, the court considered the application of 28 U.S.C. 1453(d)(3) and 1332(d)(9)(C), exceptions to the federal jurisdiction conferred by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), Pub.L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4. The court held that the case fell within CAFA's securities exception as one that solely involved a claim that "related to the rights, duties (including fiduciary duties), and obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to" a security. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, reversed the order of the district court, and instructed it to vacate its decision and order and remanded the matter to state court. View "The Bank of New York Mellon v. Walnut Place LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a registered representative and principal with various brokerage firms over the years, sought review of a final order of the Commission, which concluded that he willfully failed to disclose the existence of certain tax liens filed against him. The Commission's conclusion that petitioner acted willfully, which followed his appeal of various determinations of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and its predecessor, the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), subjected him to statutory disqualification from the securities industry. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence supporting the SEC's factual finding that petitioner failed to disclose the liens on his Forms U-4 and that the liens were material. Moreover, the SEC did not abuse its discretion when it determined that petitioner's conduct constituted a willful violation of the securities provisions relating to applications and registration. Therefore, the court denied the petition and affirmed the Commission's order. View "Mathis v. U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission" on Justia Law