Justia Securities Law Opinion Summaries

In 2008 Chesapeake Energy Corporation was one of the largest producers of natural gas in the United States, with thousands of wells in several states. By early July of that year the price of natural gas had risen and Chesapeake's stock price had risen about 50% in the prior six months. On July 9, 2008, Chesapeake sold 25 million shares of common stock in a public offering. Soon thereafter, a financial crisis rocked the global economy. The New York Stock Exchange Composite Index fell more than 30% in the three months after the Chesapeake offering. Chesapeake was hit even harder, with sharp drops in the prices of natural gas and Chesapeake's stock. Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 880 Pension Fund represented the class of all persons who purchased securities in the offering, argued that Chesapeake and named individual defendants violated sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. sections 77k, 77l(a)(2), and 77o, because the Registration Statement for the offering was materially false and misleading. According to Plaintiff, Chesapeake should have disclosed: (1) that it had expanded a risky gas-price hedging strategy that made it vulnerable to a fall in natural-gas prices; and (2) that CEO Aubrey McClendon had pledged substantially all his company stock as security for margin loans and lacked the resources to meet margin calls. The district court granted summary judgment for Chesapeake. Plaintiff appealed. But finding that Chesapeake's alleged omissions were not material or misleading, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United Food & Comm. Workers v. Chesapeake Energy, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against AECOM and AME under the whistleblower retaliation provision created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1514A. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claim against AECOM and plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that an alleged whistleblowing employee's communications need not "definitively and specifically" relate to one of the listed categories of fraud or securities violations in section 1514A in order for that employee to claim protection under the statute; a complaint under section 1514A must, however, plausibly plead that plaintiff engaged in protected activity - that plaintiff reasonably believed the conduct he challenged constituted a violation of an enumerated provision; in this case, plaintiff did not plausibly allege that it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that there was such a violation here; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Nielsen v. AECOM Technology Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his securities fraud class action for failure to state a claim. The court, agreeing with the Eleventh Circuit, held that the announcement of an investigation, standing alone, is insufficient to establish loss causation; plaintiff cannot establish loss causation on the facts alleged in the amended complaint because he has not attempted to correlate his losses to anything other than the announcement of an internal investigation; and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court on this loss causation issue. The court did not reach plaintiff's arguments regarding scienter. View "Loos v. Immersion Corp., et al." on Justia Law

In 2009, Bancorp sought to conduct a secondary stock offering to raise about $90 million. In its securities filings the company alerted potential investors that it had significant investments in mortgage backed securities, and that these investments had suffered badly during the financial crisis of 2008. The company stated that it had conducted internal analyses and consulted independent experts and now expected the level of delinquencies and defaults to level off and the market for its securities to rebound soon. But the company also stressed that if adverse market conditions persisted longer than the company expected it would have to recognize further losses. Bancorp’s opinion about the immediate future didn’t bear out. In the fifteen months after the offering, the company had to recognize about $69 million more in losses. Plaintiffs alleged in their lawsuit against Bancorp that the statements rendered in the offering statement about the prospects for its securities portfolio was false and should have given rise to liability under section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. The district court disagreed, holding that Bancorp’s failed market predictions, without more, weren’t enough to trigger liability. "To establish liability for an opinion about the future more is required. But what?" Agreeing with the district court, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "MHC Mutual Conversion Fund, et al v. Sandler O'Neill & Partners, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a securities class action contending that AIG and its board of directors wrongfully reduced the value of certain securities issued by AIG. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), 15 U.S.C. 77p(d) and 78bb(f)(3), does not confer federal jurisdiction over plaintiff's state-law claims. View "Campbell v. AIG, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, purchasers of securities issued by JinkoSolar in two public offerings, appealed from the district court's dismissal of their complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws. JinkoSolar manufactures various solar cells and solar panel products. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that serious pollution problems rendered misleading statements in a prospectus describing prophylactic measures taken to comply with Chinese environmental regulations. View "Meyer v. JinkoSolar Holding Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of investors, filed suit alleging that Electronic Game Card's former CEO and CFO violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78j, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5, and that others violated section 20(a) of the Act. The court concluded that the district court did not properly strike allegations and exhibits from the Third Amended Complaint because the Auditor discovery materials at issue were not obtained in violation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(b)(3)(B). The court also concluded that the Third Amended Complaint adequately pleaded false statements and scienter. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Petrie v. Electronic Game Card, Inc." on Justia Law

The SEC sought a court order compelling SIPC to liquidate a member broker-dealer, SGC. SGC played an integral role in a multibillion-dollar financial fraud carried out through a web of companies. At issue was whether SIPC could instead be ordered to proceed against SGC to protect the CD investors' property. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the application to order SIPC to liquidate SGC where, under the Securities Investor Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 78ccc(a)(1), the CD investors did not qualify as customers of SGC under the operative statutory definition. View "SEC v. Securities Investor Protection Corp." on Justia Law

FutureSelect invested nearly $200 million in the Rye Funds, which pooled and fed money into Bernard Madoff's fraudulent securities investment scheme. The investments were lost when Madoff's fraud collapsed. FutureSelect sued Tremont Group Holdings (proponent of the Rye Funds), Oppenheimer Acquisition Corporation and Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (Tremont's parent companies) and Ernst & Young, LLP (Tremont's auditor) for their failure to conduct due diligence on Madoff's investments. The trial court dismissed on the pleadings, finding Washington's security law did not apply, and that Washington courts lacked jurisdiction over Oppenheimer. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the defendants sought to reinstate the trial court's findings. Finding no error with the Court of Appeals' decision, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed. View "Futureselect Portfolio Mgmt., Inc. v. Tremont Grp. Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, investors, alleged that they purchased defendants' stock in reliance of defendants' material misrepresentations. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The court concluded that plaintiffs have sufficiently pled their claims for securities fraud in accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. 78u-4 and 78u-5; the court need not consider the parties' arguments as to whether the district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs' request to amend their complaint; and, therefore, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "In Re: Houston Amer. Energy Corp." on Justia Law