The New York federal judge, in a 78-page order discussing whether she could ethically continue to preside, decided that her past ownership of stocks at the heart of the litigation did not disqualify her.

Scheindlin has disavowed any involvement as a plaintiff in the case, but that hasn’t stopped most IPO underwriters named as defendants from seeking her recusal in an issue that became as contentious as it is crucial.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]