Articles Posted in US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

by
In this second appeal in an SEC enforcement action against Marlon Quan and entities he controlled, including the hedge fund SCAF, three investors in SCAF challenged orders entered by the district court pertaining to the receivership, the entry of judgment against SCAF, and the pro rata distribution of SCAF's assets to investors. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and held that the investors have identified no error in the district court's approval of the First Stipulation, which was within the district court's broad discretionary power; the district court did not abuse its discretion in the approval of the Second Stipulation; there was no basis to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in applying a pro rata distribution to all investors; and the investors have waived their arguments regarding legal fees and expenses. View "SEC v. Topwater Exclusive Fund III" on Justia Law

by
Stratasys shareholders filed a securities fraud action claiming several company promotional statements were knowingly false. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that these statements were mere puffery and that the shareholders failed to sufficiently plead that Stratasys knew its statements were false when made. In this case, the statements the shareholders claim were materially misleading were so vague and such obvious hyperbole that no reasonable investor would rely upon them. Therefore, without tying the timing of the knowledge to the allegedly misleading statements, the shareholders did not plead facts sufficient to support a strong inference of scienter. View "Macomb County Employees Retirement System v. Stratasys Ltd." on Justia Law

by
ACE filed suit against LifeTime Funds' investment adviser, PMC, for breach of its section 36(b) fiduciary duty to the LifeTime Funds under the Investment Company Act (ICA) of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80a-35(b). ACE based its excessiveness-of-adviser-fees challenge on all or part of the adviser fees paid to PMC by the funds in which the LifeTime Funds invest, fees which indirectly reduced the net asset values of the LifeTime Funds. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's entry of judgment for PMC based on lack of statutory standing, holding that ACE cannot sue on behalf of a fund in which it lacks an interest. In this case, each mutual fund was a separate unregistered investment company and ACE had no security interest in the underlying funds. Therefore, the cross appeal and the motion to dismiss the cross appeal were moot or denied as moot. View "American Chemicals & Equipment Inc. 401(K) Retirement Plan v. Principal Management Corp." on Justia Law

by
The SEC filed suit against Crawford for acting as unregistered brokers in violation of section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78o(a). The district court granted the SEC summary judgment, permanently enjoined Crawford, and ordered disgorgement. The Supreme Court announced in Kokesh v. SEC, No. 16-529, slip op. at 11 (U.S. June 5, 2017), that disgorgement, as it is applied in SEC enforcement proceedings, operates as a penalty under 28 U.S.C. 2462. Because any claim for disgorgement in an SEC enforcement action must be commenced within five years of the date the claim accrued, the SEC concedes that section 2462 barred it from seeking disgorgement. Therefore, the Eighth Circuit vacated the disgorgement order. The court also held that the district court did not err in finding section 2462 did not bar the SEC's suit for the injunction, and the district court did not err in rejecting Crawford's finder exception or finder defense. Accordingly, the court affirmed in all other respects. View "SEC v. Crawford" on Justia Law

by
Class representatives challenged the district court's denial of their motion to enforce the settlement agreement in a securities settlement, and the district court's denial of a subsequent motion to alter or amend. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The court explained that this case continues to present a live controversy and the Stipulation explicitly granted that the district court would have continuing jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing the agreement and addressing settlement administration matters. The court also held that the case was not prudentially moot where the district court has the ability to provide an effective remedy; the district court did not err in interpreting the Stipulation according to its unambiguous meaning and in holding that defendants complied with the Stipulation's payment obligations; and the district court did not err by holding that the meaning of the Stipulation was unambiguous as matter of law and, in doing so, the district court did not place a burden of proof on any party. View "Cromeans v. Morgan Keegan & Co." on Justia Law