Justia Securities Law Opinion Summaries

After the mutual funds, known as the Lancelot or Colossus group, folded in 2008, the trustee in bankruptcy filed independent suits or adversary actions seeking to recover from solvent third parties, including the Funds’ auditor, law firm, and some of the Funds’ investors, which the Trustee believes received preferential transfers or fraudulent conveyances. The Funds had invested in notes issued by Thousand Lakes, which was actually a Ponzi scheme, paying old investors with newly raised money. In these proceedings the trustee contends that investors who redeemed shares before the bankruptcy received preferential transfers, 11 U.S.C. 547, or fraudulent conveyances, 11 U.S.C. 548(a)(1)(B) and raised a claim under the Illinois fraudulent-conveyance statute, using the avoiding power of 11 U.S.C. 544. The bankruptcy court dismissed the claims against the law firm that prepared circulars for the Firms. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. No Illinois court has held that failure to report a corporate manager’s acts to the board of directors exposes a law firm to malpractice liability. The complaint does not plausibly allege that alerting the directors would have made a difference.View "Peterson v. Winston & Strawn, LLP" on Justia Law

After the mutual funds, known as the Lancelot or Colossus group, folded in 2008, the trustee in bankruptcy filed independent suits or adversary actions seeking to recover from solvent third parties, including the Funds’ auditor, law firm, and some of the Funds’ investors, which the Trustee believes received preferential transfers or fraudulent conveyances. The Funds had invested in notes issued by Thousand Lakes, which was actually a Ponzi scheme, paying old investors with newly raised money. In these proceedings the trustee contends that investors who redeemed shares before the bankruptcy received preferential transfers, 11 U.S.C. 547, or fraudulent conveyances, 11 U.S.C. 548(a)(1)(B) and raised a claim under the Illinois fraudulent-conveyance statute, using the avoiding power of 11 U.S.C. 544. The bankruptcy court rejected the claims, citing the statutory exception: “the trustee may not avoid a settlement payment or transfer made to a financial participant in connection with a securities contract, except under section 548(a)(1)(A) of this title.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed. A transfer from the Funds to each redeeming investor occurred “in connection with” a securities contract.View "Peterson v. Somers Dublin, Ltd." on Justia Law

Investors filed a securities fraud action, claiming that BioMimetic misled them about Augment Bone Graft’s prospects for FDA approval. The product is designed to encourage bone growth in patients that undergo foot and ankle surgeries without the need to harvest and transplant tissue. They claim that the FDA privately communicated to BioMimetic that the FDA expected the device’s clinical trials to prove that Augment was effective based on an analysis of all study participants. The clinical trials did not achieve those results. But if BioMimetic removed from the analysis study participants that did not actually receive treatment, the data did indicate that the device was effective. Based on these two analyses, BioMimetic expressed optimism about Augment’s chances for approval to investors. The investors claim that those statements were misleading because BioMimetic did not tell them everything it knew about the FDA’s expectations, particularly the FDA’s desire for the trials to show that the device was effective based on an analysis of the entire study population. The district court dismissed, The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The complaint did not plead a strong enough inference of scienter. BioMimetic could legitimately have believed that the statistically significant results it achieved based on an analysis of the population would be sufficient to obtain approval. View "Kuyat v. BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against their bank and others, asserting a cause of action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), among other claims, asserting that Defendants engaged in an unlawful scheme to lend Plaintiffs money in violation of federal margin requirements limiting the extent to which securities can be used as collateral for funds loaned to purchase the securities. The district court (1) dismissed the complaint as to two defendants for failure of service, and (2) dismissed the remainder of the suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, finding that the alleged misconduct was not actionable under RICO, which does not encompass private claims that would have been actionable as securities fraud. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court (1) correctly concluded that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief under RICO; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint as to two defendants for failure of service. View "Calderon-Serra v. Banco Santander P.R." on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the restitution order entered against him under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. 3663A. The order awarded over $17 million to victims for losses stemming from defendant's role in the manipulation of the price of a publicly traded security. The court concluded that the district court was authorized to enter the restitution order despite section 3664(d)(4)'s ninety-day requirement; the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding restitution despite the complexity and duration of the restitution proceedings; the district court's decision that it was not required to expand the evidentiary hearings to include the live testimony and cross-examinations of affiants was within its discretion and did not violate defendant's Fifth Amendment right to due process; the district court carried its burden under the Act where it credited the government's expert's well-supported proffer of a widely accepted methodology, trained towards a logical measure of loss, and tailored to the particular circumstances of this case; and the court rejected defendant's remaining grounds for appeal which all focused on the accuracy of the amount of the district court's restitution award. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Gushlak" on Justia Law

The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) placed two credit unions, U.S. Central Federal Credit Union and Western Corporate Federal Credit Union (WesCorp), into conservatorship. Then, as liquidating agent, NCUA sued 11 defendants on behalf of U.S. Central, alleging federal and state securities violations.In a separate matter, NCUA sued one defendant on behalf of U.S. Central and WesCorp, alleging similar federal and state securities violations. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas consolidated the cases. All defendants moved for dismissal, arguing that NCUA’s claims were time-barred. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the "Extender Statute" applied to NCUA’s claims. Defendants moved for an interlocutory appeal for the Tenth Circuit to determine whether the Extender Statute applied to NCUA's claims. Finding that it did, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "National Credit Union Admin. v. Nomura Home Equity Loan, et al" on Justia Law

Sentinel specialized in short-term cash management, promising to invest customers’ cash in safe securities for good returns with high liquidity. Customers did not acquire rights to specific securities, but received a pro rata share of the value of securities in an investment pool (Segment) based on the type of customer and regulations that applied to that customer. Segment 1 was protected by the Commodity Exchange Act; Segment 3 customers by the Investment Advisors Act and SEC regulations. Despite those laws, Sentinel lumped cash together, used it to purchase risky securities, and issued misleading statements. Some securities were collateral for a loan (BONY). In 2007 customers began demanding cash and BONY pressured Sentinel for payment. Sentinel moved $166 million in corporate securities out of a Segment 1 trust to a lienable account as collateral for BONY and sold Segment 1 and 3 securities to pay BONY. Sentinel filed for bankruptcy after returning $264 million to Segment 1 from a lienable account and moving $290 million from the Segment 3 trust to the lienable account. After informing customers that it would not honor redemption requests, Sentinel distributed the full cash value of their accounts to some Segment 1 groups. After filing for bankruptcy Sentinel obtained bankruptcy court permission to have BONY distribute $300 million from Sentinel accounts to favored customers. The trustee obtained district court approval to avoid the transfers, 11 U.S.C. 547; 11 U.S.C. 549. The Seventh Circuit, noting the unique conflict between the rights of two groups of wronged customers, reversed. Sentinel’s pre-petition transfer fell within the securities exception in 11 U.S.C. 546(e); the post-petition transfer was authorized by the bankruptcy court, 11 U.S.C. 549. Neither can be avoided.View "Grede v. FCStone LLC" on Justia Law

Stinson’s scheme began in 2006 when he founded a fund, Life’s Good, with an alleged purpose to originate mortgage loans. Stinson advertised a “risk free” 16 percent annual return to investors with individual retirement accounts. He hired telemarketers to “cold call” potential investors and later produced a fraudulent prospectus and worked through investment advisors. Stinson did not use investors’ money to make mortgage loans, but diverted it to various personal business ventures that employed his family and friends without requiring them to work. In 2010, the SEC initiated a civil enforcement action. Stinson was charged with wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343; mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341; money laundering, 18 U.S.C. 1957; bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1344; filing false tax returns, 26 U.S.C. 7206(1); obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. 1505; and making false statements, 18 U.S.C. 1001. The SEC’s analysis showed that Life’s Good solicited $17.6 million from at least 262 investors and returned approximately $1.9 million. Many individuals lost retirement savings. Stinson entered an open guilty plea. The district court sentenced him to 400 months and ordered restitution of $14,051,246. The Third Circuit vacated, finding that the court erroneously applied U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(15)(A), which increases the offense level by two points when “the defendant derived more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts from one or more financial institutions.” The enhancement applies only when financial institutions are the source of a defendant’s gross receipts. View "United States v. Stinson" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Brian McKye was charged with eight counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The district court refused to give the jury his tendered instruction that would have permitted the jury to decide whether the investment notes at issue were securities under federal securities law. He was convicted and received a 262-month sentence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court erred by not giving the tendered instruction, and reversed the convictions.View "United States v. McKye" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought to add a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77k, against former outside directors of Peregrine. The district court denied leave to amend the complaint, concluding that amendment would be futile because the "negative causation" defense barred plaintiff's proposed claim. The court concluded that Section 11 imposed broad liability without regard to reliance or fraudulent intent for any material misstatements or omissions contained in a registration statement for the first year that the registration statement was available. In this instance, plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the material misstatements at issue caused his losses, and thus amending the complaint would not be futile. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.View "Hildes v. Arthur Andersen LLP" on Justia Law