Justia Securities Law Opinion Summaries

Daley opened an IRA with Merrill Lynch, rolling over $64,646 from another financial institution. He signed a contract with a "liens" provision that pledged the IRA as security for any future debts to Merrill Lynch. No such debts ever arose. Daley never withdrew money from his IRA, borrowed from it or used it as collateral. Two years later, Daley filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and sought protection for the IRAs, 11 U.S.C. 522(b)(3)(C). The trustee objected, contending that the IRA lost its exempt status when Daley signed the lien agreement. The bankruptcy court and the district court ruled in favor of the trustee. The Sixth Circuit reversed. An IRA loses its tax-exempt status if the owner "engages in any transaction prohibited by section 4975 of the tax code. There are six such transactions, including “any direct or indirect” “lending of money or other extension of credit” between the IRA and its owner, 26 U.S.C. 4975(c)(1)(B). Daley never borrowed from the IRA, and Merrill Lynch never extended credit to Daley based on the existence of the IRA. View "Daley v. Mostoller" on Justia Law

FINRA filed a complaint against petitioner, charging that he violated FINRA rules by submitting false expense reports for reimbursement of nonexistent business travel and for a fraudulently purchased cellular telephone. In his petition for review, petitioner argued that the SEC abused its discretion in upholding a lifetime bar based on his violation of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) Conduct Rule 2110. The court remanded to the SEC for further consideration, agreeing with petitioner that the SEC abused its discretion in failing to adequately address all of the potentially mitigating factors that the agency should have considered when it determined the appropriate sanction. View "Saad v. SEC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against Defendant, the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, alleging that, in retaliation for Plaintiff's anti-regulatory stance, Defendant used his oversight powers to retaliate unlawfully against Plaintiff. The federal district court dismissed the complaint on immunity grounds. At issue before the First Circuit Court of Appeals was the scope and extent of the immunities offered to state officials, such as Defendant, whose duties encompass both prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions. The First Circuit affirmed the district court, holding that, notwithstanding Defendant's dual roles, Defendant was, with one exception, entitled to absolute immunity from Plaintiff's suit. View "Goldstein v. Galvin" on Justia Law

Appellants sought to avoid and recover certain payments made by debtor, QWUSA, to appellees, noteholders, in exchange for private placement notes that had been issued by one of debtor's affiliates. On appeal, appellants challenged the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's grant of appellees' motion for summary judgment. The bankruptcy court held that the payments were exempt from avoidance because they were both "settlement payments" and "transfers made... in connection with a securities contract," under 11 U.S.C. 546(e). The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the payments fell within the safe harbor for "transfers made... in connection with a securities contract." View "In re: Quebecor World (USA), Inc." on Justia Law

This is an adversary proceeding arising out of the bankruptcy of debtor (Derivium). Plaintiff (Grayson), assignee of the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee, appealed from a district court judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's decision to grant summary judgment for defendants (Wachovia). The court concluded that the district court did not err in affirming the grant of summary judgment for Wachovia on Grayson's Customer Transfers claim; summary judgment for Wachovia on Grayson's Cash Transfers claim; the bankruptcy court's determinations that the stockbroker defense applied to commissions; and the bankruptcy court's ruling that in pari delicto barred Grayson's tort claims against Wachovia. View "Grayson Consulting, Inc. v. Wachovia Securities, LLC" on Justia Law

CVS Corp. and Caremark Rx Inc. merged in 2007, creating CVS Caremark Corporation. In 2010, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against CVS Caremark and certain of its current and former employees. The complaint was later amended to add new plaintiffs - the retirement systems of the city of Brockton and the counties of Plymouth and Norfolk, Massachusetts (collectively, the Retirement Systems). The Retirement Systems claimed that Defendants made material misrepresentations in violation of the Securities Exchange Act and rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Specifically, the Retirement Systems alleged that CVS Caremark's CEO's statements in an earnings call with investors caused a drop in CVS Caremark's share price. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal of the complaint and remanded, holding that Plaintiffs' complaint alleged loss causation sufficiently plausible to foreclose dismissal. View "Mass. Ret. Sys. v. CVS Caremark Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are investors who purchased Omnicare securities in a 2005 public offering. They sold their securities a few weeks later and sought relief under the Securities Act of 1933,15 U.S.C. 77k, alleging that the registration statement was materially misleading. Omnicare is the nation’s largest provider of pharmaceutical care services for the elderly and other residents of long-term care facilities in the U.S. and Canada. Plaintiffs claimed that Omnicare was engaged in a variety of illegal activities including kickback arrangements with pharmaceutical manufacturers and submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. The Registration Statement stated “that [Omnicare’s] therapeutic interchanges were meant to provide [patients with] . . . more efficacious and/or safer drugs than those presently being prescribed” and that its contracts with drug companies were “legally and economically valid arrangements that bring value to the healthcare system and patients that we serve.” The district court dismissed the suit against Omnicare, its officers, and directors, holding that plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded knowledge of wrongdoing. The Sixth Circuit reversed with regard to claims of material misstatements or omissions of legal compliance, but affirmed with respect to claims that revenue was substantially overstated in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. View "IN State Dist. Counsel v. Omnicare, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a post-judgment order barring him from acting as an officer or director of a public company for ten years, pursuant to section 21(d)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(2). The SEC accused defendant of insider trading and, after the entry of a consent judgment, in which defendant neither admitted nor denied the allegations in the complaint, the SEC moved for an officer and director bar pursuant to section 21(d)(2). The court held that the district court did not err in relying on the six Patel factors in this case. The 2002 Amendment, by lowering the threshold of misconduct required to impose the officer and director bar, did not undermine the usefulness of the Patel factors, which indicated where evidence of unfitness might be found in a defendant's conduct. In light of the circumstances presented, the district court reasonably determined that a ten year ban was warranted and, therefore, did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "SEC v. Bankosky" on Justia Law

The Kepleys owned 30% of ATA’s outstanding capital stock. Lanz bought one share of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock in the corporation and a right to purchase common stock. At that time, Lanz, ATA, and its shareholders entered into an agreement, prohibiting sale of restricted shares (including Lanz’s share) to ATA’s competitors. In 2010, the Kepleys learned that Lanz sought to sell his share and purchase option to Crimson, an ATA competitor, for $2,799,000. The Kepleys sued, contending that Crimson’s president told them that they could not afford the Lanz shares or litigation and that Crimson would “shut it down or squeeze them out.” The Kepleys sold their shares to Crimson. Lanz did not complete the sale of his stock and remained a shareholder in ATA, 30 percent of which Crimson then owned. The Kepleys sought the difference between the sale price and the fair market value of the shares. The district court dismissed, finding that the Kepleys lacked standing because their alleged injury amounted to diminution in stock value, suffered by the corporation, and only derivatively shared by the Kepleys. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the Kepleys, who are no longer shareholders and cannot pursue derivative claims, have standing for a direct suit. View "Kepley v. Lanz" on Justia Law

Appellant purchased nonrecourse notes (Notes) in the amount of two million dollars, issued by the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust Fund (PRCTF). The Notes were not registered under the Securities Act based on an exemption from registration. The Notes later went into default, and Appellant sued Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR), trustee of the Notes, and Wilmington Trust Company (WTC), indenture trustee of the securities that the PRCTF purchased with Note proceeds. Appellant brought suit in federal district court, premising his assertion of subject matter jurisdiction on the Edge Act and the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA). The district court dismissed the amended complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's suit did not arise under federal law; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit Appellant to file a delayed amended complaint asserting a new theory of liability because Appellant proffered no good reason for the delay. View "Nikitine v. Wilmington Trust Co." on Justia Law