Justia Securities Law Opinion Summaries

This case stemmed from the SEC's civil enforcement action against former infoUSA financial officers, including defendant. A jury found that defendant violated various securities laws and the district court imposed several civil penalties. Defendant subsequently appealed. The court concluded that defendant could not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against him because he failed to file a postverdict motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) after the district court denied his Rule 50(a) motion. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in admitting the testimony of the SEC's expert witness where the expert's use of the primary-purpose test as a means for applying the integrally-and-directly-related standard did not misconstrue a legal issue or alter the legal standard that defendant was required to apply as CFO. The court held, however, that it was not clear whether the jury made the finding necessary for the SEC's section 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(5), claim and, based on the claims the SEC asserted against defendant, the bad-faith finding was unnecessary to a final resolution of the matter. Accordingly, the court vacated the conclusion that defendant violated section 13(b)(5) and the finding that defendant acted in bad faith, remanding for further proceedings. The court affirmed the case in all other respects. View "SEC v. Dean, et al." on Justia Law

Walsh and Martin, principals of a futures and foreign currency trading company that acted as a “futures commission merchant” and as a “forex dealer member,” used customer funds for personal expenses, then concealed the company’s insolvency and their criminal conduct by misleading customers about the company’s ability to meet its obligations. Existing customers got account statements that falsely stated their available margin funds, and they solicited new customers by making false statements. They also used a Ponzi-like scheme for redemptions. Shortly before it was shut down, the company had $17,654,486 in unpaid customer liabilities and only $677,932 in assets. Walsh and Martin pleaded guilty to wire fraud, tax evasion, and to making false statements in a report to the Commodities Futures and Trading Commission, a Commodities Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6d(a)) violation. The district court sentenced them to terms of imprisonment of 150 and 204 months, respectively, and ordered each to pay $16,976,554 in restitution. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to a finding as to the amount of loss and restitution and to application of a sentencing enhancement based upon a finding that each was an officer or director of a futures commission merchant. View "United States v. Walsh" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a civil enforcement action brought by the SEC against Symbol Technologies. Defendant, Symbol's president and COO, subsequently appealed the district court's order directing him to disgorge to the SEC over $41 million, plus prejudgment interest, and to pay a civil penalty, for violations of various securities laws. For a number of years, defendant and others engaged in a wide array of fraudulent accounting practices and other misconduct. The court found no error or abuse of discretion in the entry of the default judgment, the denial of defendant's recusal motion, and the disgorgement award. The court, however, remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest and for the clerical correction of a discrepancy between the amount of the civil penalty ordered in the district court's ruling and the amount of the penalty awarded in the judgment. View "SEC v. Razmilovic" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action seeking to hold ProShares liable for material omissions and misrepresentations in the prospectuses for certain exchange-traded funds (ETFs) under the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77k and 77o. Plaintiffs alleged that registration of statements omitted the risk that the ETFs, when held for a period of greater than one day, could lose substantial value in a relatively brief period of time, particularly in periods of high volatility. The district court concluded that the disclosures at issue accurately conveyed the specific risk that plaintiffs asserted materialized. The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the relevant prospectuses adequately warned the reasonable investor of the allegedly omitted risks. View "In Re: ProShares Trust Sec. Litig." on Justia Law

Bauer served as an officer in investment companies, on the pricing committee, and as chief compliance officer, implementing policies to prohibit employees from trading on nonpublic information regarding the securities held in the companies’ portfolios. Following trades for her personal account, the Securities and Exchange Commission charge Bauer with insider trading in connection with mutual fund redemption. The district court granted the SEC summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting that the SEC rarely brings insider trading claims in connection with mutual fund redemption and that no federal court has ruled on the issue. The district court must determine whether Bauer’s alleged conduct properly fits under the misappropriation theory of insider trading, under which a corporate outsider misappropriates confidential information for securities trading purposes in breach of a duty owed to the source of the information. The court noted that Bauer did not argue that mutual fund redemptions cannot entail deception under the classical theory, but conceded that insider trading liability could attach to mutual fund redemptions if it could be shown that she knew the product was priced incorrectly, but that the issue must be resolved at the trial court level. View "Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Bauer" on Justia Law

PFG and Acuvest had an agreement (later terminated) under which guaranteed Acuvest’s customers that Acuvest would conform its conduct to CEA mandates. Acuvest advised Prestwick with respect to an investment on which it suffered a substantial loss. Prestwick sued PFG, Acuvest, and two of Acuvest’s principals, alleging violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), 7 U.S.C. 1, a breach of fiduciary duty against the Acuvest defendants, and a guarantor liability claim against PFG. Prestwick argued that termination of PFG’s guarantee of Acuvest’s obligations under the CEA did not terminate protection “for existing accounts opened during the term of the guarantee.” The district court awarded summary judgment to PFG and dismissed the remaining defendants with prejudice so that Prestwick could appeal. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that contracts between the parties were definitive and rejecting Prestwick’s assertion public policy and estoppel to overcome a decision that the guarantee agreement was properly terminated. View "Prestwick Capital Mgmt., Ltd. v. Peregrine Fin. Grp., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against GE Energy, alleging violations of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, 15 U.S.C. 78u-6(h) (the "whistleblower-protection provision", because GE Energy terminated him after he made an internal report of a possible securities law violation. The court concluded that the plain language of section 78u-6 limited protection under the whistleblower provision to those individuals who provided information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the SEC. In this instance, plaintiff did not provide any information to the SEC and, therefore, he did not qualify as a "whistleblower" under Dodd-Frank. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of his claim. View "Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former Lehman employees, filed suit alleging that defendants, members of the Benefits Committee, and the company's Directors, breached their duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. In regards to plaintiffs' claims that the Benefits Committee Defendants breached their duty of prudence in managing the company's employee stock ownership plan (ESOP), the court concluded that plaintiffs have not rebutted the Moench v. Robertson presumption because they failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the Benefits Committee Defendants knew or should have known that Lehman was in a "dire situation" based on information that was publicly available during the class period. In regards to plaintiffs' claims that the Benefits Committee Defendants breached their duty of disclosure, the publicly-known information available to defendants did not give rise to an independent duty to investigate Lehman's SEC filings prior to incorporating their content into a summary plan description issued to plan-participants. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' remaining claims. View "In Re: Lehman Bros. ERISA Litig." on Justia Law

Kluger and Bauer were charged as conspirators in an insider-trading scheme in which Robinson was the third participant. The conspiracy spanned 17 years and was likely the longest such scheme in U.S. history. Kluger entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to commit securities fraud; securities fraud; conspiracy to commit money laundering; and obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. 371, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78ff(a); 18 U.S.C. 1956(h), 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2), and 18 U.S.C. 2. The plea agreement did not include a stipulation as to the guidelines sentencing range. The district court imposed a 60-month term on Count I and 144-month custodial terms on each other count, all to be served concurrently, thought to be the longest insider-trading sentence ever imposed. After a separate hearing on the same day, the court sentenced Bauer to a 60-month term on Count I and 108-month terms on each other count to be served concurrently. Robinson, who was the “middleman,” in the scheme, pled guilty to three counts and was sentenced to concurrent 27-month terms. Robinson’s sentence was far below his guidelines range of 70 to 87 months but the prosecution sought a downwards departure because Robinson was cooperating in its investigation and prosecution. The Third Circuit upheld Kluger’s sentence. View "United States v. Kluger" on Justia Law

After accumulating a fortune in the technology business, Patel became a hedge fund manager. He formed a fund, and Sitara to serve as the fund’s investment adviser, and named himself managing director of Sitara. His acquaintances purchased interests in the fund. After initial success, Patel invested $6.8 million, nearly all of the fund’s assets, in Freddie Mac common stock in 2008, after the beginning of the subprime mortgage crisis. The fund incurred devastating losses. Owners of limited partnership interests sued Patel and Sitara, claiming federal and state securities fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraudulent inducement. Their second amended complaint asserted only failure to register securities in violation of federal law, failure to register as an investment advisor under Illinois law, and breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1109(a). Plaintiffs sought to file a third amended complaint, based upon purported misrepresentations discovered while deposing Patel: an offering memorandum statement that Patel “intends to contribute no less than one hundred thousand dollars” and Patel’s oral statement that he was investing some of the $18 million from the sale of a former business at the inception of the fund. Patel did not invest any proceeds from the sale of his company at the inception. The district court denied the motion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The new claims suffered from deficiencies that rendered the proposed amendment futile. View "Shailja Gandhi Revocable Trust v. Sitara Capital Mgmt., LLC" on Justia Law