Justia Securities Law Opinion Summaries

A 2004 judgment entered against John Zelaya was rendered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and was registered in the Southern District of Florida. ZC was not party to the suit that led to the judgment and, instead, the prevailing parties assigned their interests in the judgment to ZC. ZC then sought a writ of execution against Zelaya from the Southern District of Florida. In 2010, Zelaya deposited the full amount of the judgment into the district court's registry where the district court then dissolved writs of garnishment against all of the banks at issue, granted Zelaya's motion for a satisfaction judgment, and awarded attorney fees and costs to Deutsche Bank. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the consolidated appeal; the district court did not err in allowing Zelaya to deposit the disputed funds into the court's registry; the district court did not err in granting Zelaya's motion for a satisfaction of the judgment; the district court did not err in its award of attorney fees and costs to Deutsche Bank; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Zelaya/Capital Int'l Judgment, LLC v. Zelaya, et al." on Justia Law

KBC Asset Management sued Omnicare (a pharmaceutical company) and affiliated individuals, on behalf of Ansfield and other similarly situated shareholders, alleging that the defendants had committed securities fraud in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5. KBC charged the defendants with making various material misrepresentations and omissions between January 10, 2007 and August 5, 2010 in public and in SEC filings regarding Omnicare’s compliance with Medicare and Medicaid regulations. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, based on the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. 78u-4, which created heightened pleading standards for securities-fraud cases and requires that plaintiffs identify each misleading or false statement and explain how it is misleading. Plaintiffs also must “state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant[s] acted with the required state of mind.” KCB did not meet those requirements. View "Ansfield v. Omnicare, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs purchased FCH stock through Shearson’s broker, Steinberg, between 1987 and 1990. FCH filed for bankruptcy in 1991. Plaintiffs retained the law firm to represent them in claims under the Illinois Securities Law. At that time, they had a viable claim for rescission. The firm failed to serve the required rescission notice. In 1992, plaintiffs hired new counsel to pursue their claims against Shearson, which were later dismissed as time-barred. In 1994 plaintiffs filed a malpractice action against the law firm. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Illinois Securities Law claim, but reversed as to common law fraud and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. In 2007, plaintiffs settled those claims for $3.2 million. Later, the trial court found the law firm liable and calculated damages: plaintiffs’ $3.2 million settlement would be deducted from the total they paid for their 11 stock purchases, and 10% interest would be calculated on the remaining amount based on the dates of the stock purchases, for a total award of $4,091,752.19 plus attorney fees of $1,636,700.80, and $207,167.28 in costs and expenses. The appellate court affirmed, but remanded for recalculation of damages and attorney fees. The Illinois Supreme Court remanded for calculation of statutory interest damages on the full amount paid for each security from the date of purchase to the 2007 date of settlement, then deducting the $3.2 million recovery.View "Goldfine v. Barack, Ferrazzano, Kirschbaum & Perlman" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, purchasers of NVIDIA's stock, filed suit alleging that the company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and corresponding SEC Rule 10b-5, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' amended complaint because they failed to adequately allege scienter. The court held that Item 303 of Regulation S-K did not create a duty to disclose for purposes of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Such a duty to disclose must be separately shown according to the principles set forth in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson and Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano. Further, neither the collective scienter doctrine nor the core operations doctrine alone gives rise to a strong inference of scienter in this case. There is no allegation that the issue of an inherent defect in NVIDIA's Material Set was ever publicly raised prior to NVIDIA's disclosure, nor is there any allegation that NVIDIA knowingly issued a false press release, attempting to discount any public discussion regarding its chips' defects. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "In Re: Nvidia Corp. Sec. Litig." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Amedisys and others, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(b)(4). Plaintiffs claimed that Amedisys defrauded investors by concealing a Medicare fraud scheme. The district court granted a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and dismissed the suit with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration but the district court denied the motion. The court concluded that the motion to dismiss should be denied as to the element of loss causation. The district court's application of the "actual fraud" standard to the partial disclosures at issue, and when viewed against the stark results of Amedisys's second quarter of 2010 earnings report, requires reversal and vacating the prior dismissal. View "Bach, et al. v. Amedisys, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Securities lending is a common practice: securities are temporarily transferred by the lender to a borrower, who is obliged to return the securities, either on demand, or at the end of any agreed term. For the period of the loan the lender is secured by acceptable collateral (in the U.S., often cash) valued at 102% [to] 105% of the market value of the loaned securities. The borrower may be motivated by desire to cover a short position, to sell the borrowed securities in hopes of buying them back at a lower price before returning them, or to gain tax advantages associated with the temporary transfer of ownership. The plaintiffs are pension funds that are shareholders in exchange-traded funds issued by iShares. iShares, as part of its mutual-fund operations, lends its securities holdings to various borrowers to generate substantial revenue. BTC, a related company, serves as iShares’s middleman between iShares and those who seek to borrow iShares’s securities and receives 35% of all securities-lending net revenue. BFA, another related company, is the investment adviser for iShares and manages its portfolios for a separate fee. Plaintiffs alleged that BFA and BTC violated the Investment Company Act, 15 U.S.C. 80a-35(a), (b), by charging an excessive lending fee because the fee charged by BTC bears no relationship to actual services rendered. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that the Act does not create a private cause of action. View "Laborers' Local 265 Pension Fund v. iShares Trust" on Justia Law

The SEC filed suit against Arthur Nadel and two of his investment companies for operating a Ponzi scheme. The district court appointed a receiver to take possession and control over Quest because the officers were funding the company with proceeds from a Ponzi scheme. The district court enjoined the current officers from taking any actions on behalf of Quest and vested the receiver with the authority to "[d]efend, compromise or settle legal actions, including the instant proceeding." The officers now appeal the appointment of the receiver. The court granted the receiver's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the officers did not have standing to appeal in the name of Quest where the district court enjoined the officers from taking any action on behalf of Quest. View "SEC v. Quest Energy Mgmt. Grp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the receiver for the Stanford entities, filed suit seeking to recover funds that were paid to defendants, purchasers of certificate of deposits from Standard International Bank (SIB) as part of a Ponzi scheme. The court concluded that the district court properly applied the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 24.010, to the receiver's claims; the receiver has standing to bring the TUFTA claims on behalf of the Stanford entities; and the receiver's claims are not barred by the statute of limitations. On the merits, the court concluded that the receiver established that the Stanford principles transferred monies to the investor-defendants with fraudulent intent; unlike interest payments, it is undisputed that the principal payments were payments of an antecedent debt, namely fraud claims that the investor-defendants have as victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme; the district court did not err in denying an exemption under Texas Property Code 42.0021(a) where investor-defendants have offered no evidence that they have a legal right to the funds despite those funds being the product of a fraudulent transfer; and the court declined to reach the investor-defendants' argument that certain factual issues remain. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of the receiver's motion for summary judgment. View "Janvey, et al. v. Brown, et al." on Justia Law

Doolittle was a registered securities broker/dealer, and a registered investment advisor. He or his corporations held licenses, permits, or certificates to engage in real estate and insurance brokerage and tax preparation. Around 1990 his primary business became “trust deeds investments,” in which he “would arrange groups of investors together to buy those loans or to fund those transactions for different types of individuals and institutional borrowers.” After investors lost money, Doolittle was convicted and sentenced to 13 years in prison for three counts of theft by false pretenses; six counts of theft from an elder or dependent adult; nine counts of false statements or omissions in the sale of securities; selling unregistered securities; and sale of a security by willful and fraudulent use of a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud The appeals court reversed in part, holding that Doolittle’s challenge that the trial court’s implied finding of timely prosecution was not supported by substantial evidence required remand with respect to two of the charges. A further hearing may be necessary with respect to applicability of a sentence enhancement for aggregate losses over $500,000. Doolittle’s conviction for sale of unregistered securities and sale of securities by means of a fraudulent device did not rest on the same conduct as his convictions for fraud against specific victims; his sentence on the former counts therefore does not offend the proscription against duplicative punishment. View "People v. Doolittle" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased common stock from Xerox during a certain period, alleging that Xerox violated the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. Plaintiffs alleged that Xerox and executive officers violated federal securities law by materially misrepresenting that Xerox's worldwide restructuring initiative was financially beneficial to the corporation, when, in fact, one specific component of the restructuring - the "Customer Business Organization Reorganization" - was causing significant and ongoing economic distress to the company. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants because there was no genuine dispute of material fact with respect to the sufficiency of Xerox's disclosures about the successes and failures of this component of its worldwide restructuring. View "Dalberth v. Xerox Corp." on Justia Law