Justia Securities Law Opinion Summaries

Rahman filed a securities class action against KB, an importer of infant furniture and products, and individuals, alleging violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and (2) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleged that defendants misled investors by artificially inflating KB’s stock price by issuing deceptive public financial reports and press releases dealing with compliance with customs laws and overall financial performance. A second amended complaint specified failure to disclose product recalls, safety violations, and illegal staffing practices. The district court dismissed for failure to satisfy the heightened scienter pleading standard required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(b)(2). The Third Circuit affirmed. View "Rahman v. Kid Brands, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from the collapse of the hedge fund Lipper Convertibles. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment on their federal claims against Lipper Convertibles' auditor, PwC, under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq., as well as their state law claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The court concluded that there was a genuine dispute as to whether plaintiffs suffered a direct injury at the time of investment by purchasing their shares in Lipper Convertibles funds at fraudulently inflated prices. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment on the Section 10(b) claims and remanded to the district court to consider in the first instance PwC's scienter argument and for further proceedings. The court affirmed the state law claims. View "CILP Assocs., L.P. v. PriceWaterhouse Coopers LLP" on Justia Law

Through their companies, Pilon and her husband falsely represented that one investment program would generate significant returns that Pilon would use to pay off the investors’ mortgages within two years, and make a bonus cash payment to investors. Many investors refinanced mortgages to invest. With respect to another investment program, Pilon falsely represented that money would be invested in a high-yield fund and that investors would receive 100 percent on their investments within about 90 days. Pilon hinted at religious and humanitarian purposes. Pilon paid early investors’ mortgages with later investors’ money (a Ponzi scheme). About 40 people invested $4,000 to $110,000, losing a total of $967,702. The Illinois Department of Securities ordered Pilon to cease offering investments; she ignored the order. When the scheme unraveled and investors lost their homes, Pilon was indicted for wire fraud. Pilon, a member of a sovereign citizen movement, unsuccessfully moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Immediately before jury selection, Pilon stated her intent to plead guilty; when the government proffered the facts, Pilon denied everything. After testimony by eight government witnesses, Pilon admitted to the scheme and pleaded guilty. In calculating Pilon’s guideline range, the court applied an enhancement for abuse of a position of trust, declined to credit Pilon for acceptance of responsibility, and sentenced Pilon to 78 months’ incarceration, in the middle of the range, and imposed $967,702 in restitution. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Pilon" on Justia Law

The SEC settled an enforcement action against firms that executed trading orders on the New York Stock Exchange and placed the money obtained as a result of the enforcement actions into funds for distribution to injured customers. The SEC ordered the remaining funds to be disbursed to the United States Treasury. On appeal, petitioner, who had filed class actions against the firms, challenged the SEC's disbursement order seeking to invoke the court's statutory jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. 78y. The court concluded that petitioner failed to plead an injury in fact sufficient to afford it Article III standing. For every Covered Transaction in which petitioner was identified as the injured customer, petitioner had already received a distribution from the Fair Funds that fully compensated it for that Covered Transaction. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Martin v. U.S. S.E.C." on Justia Law

An investor pursued a claim against an investment company over losses he incurred due to the failure of some of the company's bond funds. A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel ruled in the investor's favor. The investment company subsequently petitioned the chancery court to vacate the award based on the alleged bias of two members of the arbitration panel. The trial court vacated the award and remanded for a second arbitration before a new panel. The court of appeals dismissed the investor's appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the trial court's order did not expressly confirm or deny the arbitration award. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court's order was, in fact, an appealable order "denying confirmation" of an arbitration award under Tenn. Code Ann. 29-5-319(a)(3). Remanded.View "Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Smythe" on Justia Law

The Board of Supervisors of Fluvanna County filed a complaint against Davenport & Company asserting that Davenport, which served as the financial advisor to the Board, knowingly made false representations and used its fiduciary position to persuade the Board to hire Davenport as an advisor regarding the financing of the construction of a new high school. Davenport filed a demurrer to the complaint, which the circuit court granted on the basis that the separation of powers doctrine prevented the court from resolving the controversy because the court would have to inquire into the motives of the Board's legislative decision making. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board effectively waived its common law legislative immunity from civil liability and the burden of litigation, and therefore the circuit court erred in sustaining Davenport's demurrer on these grounds.View "Bd. of Supervisors of Fluvanna County v. Davenport & Co. LLC" on Justia Law

Developers purchased forty acres with the intent to develop it. Appellants secured a mortgage on the property with a bank. Later Developers formed a municipal property owners' district (the District). Law Firm was retained by the District as legal counsel for the proposed issuance of improvement bonds to finance public improvements in the development. At issue in this case were certain bonds issued by the District that were sold to several banks (Appellants). Developer defaulted on payment of the capital improvement use fees on the bonds and subsequently defaulted on the original mortgage, and the property was sold. Appellants sued Law Firm, alleging that Law Firm had a duty to inform Appellants of the mortgage on the real property and that it failed to inform them. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Law Firm. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the circuit court (1) correctly found Law Firm was not liable under the Arkansas Security Act; (2) erred in granting judgment on the issue of attorney malpractice; and (3) correctly found Law Firm had no duty to Appellants under contract, negligence, or breach of a fiduciary duty.View "First Ark. Bank & Trust v. Gill Elrod Ragon Owen & Sherman, P.A." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this matter was whether the Chancery Court was required to dismiss a Delaware derivative complaint after a California federal court entered final judgment dismissing the same complaint brought by different stockholders. The Chancery Court determined it was not required to give preclusive effect to the California judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the Chancery Court erred in its determination: (1) the lower court held as a matter of Delaware law that the stockholder plaintiffs in the two jurisdictions were not in privity with one another; (2) that the California stockholders were not adequate representatives of the defendant corporation; (3) California law controlled the issue, and derivative stockholders were in privity with one another because they acted on behalf of the corporation; and (4) the Chancery Court adopted a presumption of inadequacy without the record to support it. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded.View "Pyott v. Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System" on Justia Law

In 2006, a German bank organized two affiliated entities under Delaware law. One sold a class of securities (Trust Preferred Securities) as part of the bank's effort to raise capital. In 2009, the bank acquired a second German bank by merger, whereby the bank assumed an obligation of the acquired bank to make certain payments with respect to a class of the acquired bank's securities. The bank made those payments in 2009 and 2010. In 2010, Plaintiff, who is the Property Trustee for the holders of the acquiror bank's Trust Preferred Securities sued claiming the 2009 and 2010 payments on the acquired bank's securities (which was a "Parity Security") triggered a contractual obligation by the bank to make comparable payments on the Trust Preferred Securities. The bank argued that it had no such contractual obligation. On cross motions for summary judgment, the Court of Chancery rejected the Trustee's claim on the basis that, because the 2009 and 2010 payments were not made on "Parity Securities," the bank had no obligation to make payments on the Trust Preferred Securities. Because the Supreme Court disagreed and concluded that the Court of Chancery erred, the Court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter final judgment for the Trustee.View "Bank of New York Mellon v. Commerzbank Capital Funding Trust II" on Justia Law

The State of Oregon, through the Oregon State Treasurer and the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Board (PERB), on behalf of the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Fund (PERF) (collectively, "state"), asserted claims against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) and Marsh, Inc. (MI). The state alleged that Marsh engaged in a scheme perpetrated by false and misleading statements that caused the state to lose approximately $10 million on investments in Marsh stock. The state contended that Marsh's actions violated ORS 10 59.135 and ORS 59.137. Marsh argued on appeal that ORS 59.135 and ORS 59.137 require a showing of reliance by the state, the state failed to establish any direct reliance by state actors on any actions by Marsh, and the state could not establish the required reliance by means of a presumption of reliance based on the "fraud-on-the-market" doctrine. Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable statutes, the Supreme Court determined that ORS 59.137 requires a stock purchaser to establish reliance, but that a stock purchaser who purchases stock on an efficient, open market may establish reliance by means of the "fraud-on-the-market" presumption. View "Oregon v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc." on Justia Law