Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
42 results for '* topic:"Securities Litigation"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2024-02-19
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Wallach
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Francis J. Murphy, Jr., Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon, Wilmington, DE; Steven M. Coren, Benjamin M. Mather, Matthew R. Williams, Kauffman, Coren & Ress, P.C, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Brian M. Rostocki, Anne M. Steadman, Justin M. Forcier, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jonathan K. Youngwood, Janet A. Gochman, Tyler A. Anger, Katherine A. Hardiman, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, New York, NY; Kevin R. Shannon, Daniel Rusk, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Tracy Richelle High, Scott A. Foltz, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 15-00897-EJW
Although plaintiffs' experts' report in support of their damages theory for class certification used sufficiently reliable methodologies under the Daubert standard, the evidence was wholly speculative to demonstrate economic loss or proximate causation, such that plaintiffs could not meet the commonality or predominance standards.
Publication Date: 2023-11-27
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Electronics | Health Care | Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bryson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-700-WCB
Court declined to dismiss securities and common law fraud claims where acquirer failed to disclose the existence of its obligations under a competing earnout agreement when negotiating acquisition of a company.
Publication Date: 2023-09-11
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Wallach
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Francis J. Murphy, Jr., Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon, Wilmington, DE; Steven M. Coren, Benjamin M. Mather, Matthew R. Williams, Kauffman, Coren & Ress, P.C, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Brian M. Rostocki, Anne M. Steadman, Justin M. Forcier, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jonathan K. Youngwood, Janet A. Gochman, Tyler A. Anger, Katherine A. Hardiman, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, New York, NY; Kevin R. Shannon, Jonathan A. Choa, Daniel Rusk, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Tracy Richelle High, Scott A. Foltz, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 15-00897-EJW
Court declined to exclude expert report in support of class certification where unreliability of trading model was not fatal to the reliability and admissibility of the report's event study, but plaintiffs' theories of damages in their expert report did not encompass some damages experienced by certain sophisticated investors.
Publication Date: 2023-07-17
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Insurance | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Phipps
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joseph D. Daley, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, San Diego, CA; Peter S. Pearlman, Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf, Saddle Brook, NJ; Daniel J. Pfefferbaum, Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, San Francisco, CA; Douglas Wilens, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Boca Raton, FL for appellant.
for defendant: David D. Cramer, Tricia B. O’Reilly, Walsh Pizzi O’Reilly & Falanga, Newark, NJ; Maeve L. O’Connor, Susan R. Gittes, Aasiya F.M. Glover, Debevoise & Plimpton, New York, NY for appellees.
Case Number: 21-1147
Stockholder sufficiently alleged false or misleading corporate statements where life insurance company reported normal or slightly negative mortality experience only weeks prior to announcing massive increase in reserves, and stockholder had confidential internal information indicating the company had already been contemplating increasing reserves.
Publication Date: 2023-06-06
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: E-Commerce
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Fallon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-1164-CFC-SRF
Court granted motion for leave to amend securities complaint where no scheduling order had been entered in the case and no defendant had raised a claim that amendment would result in undue prejudice.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Patrick S. Montoya, Ervin A. Gonzalez, Ervin A. Gonzalez
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-05-23
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: E-Commerce
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Fallon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-1164-CFC-SRF
Court granted motion for leave to amend securities lawsuit where the motion was made prior to the issuance of a scheduling order and no defendant argued that the amended pleading was futile or would cause them undue prejudice.
Publication Date: 2022-08-30
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Retail | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Greenaway
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D69937
Court affirmed district court's dismissal of claims under federal and state securities law finding that a failure to disclose the possibility that legal action could result as a part of an asset acquisition did not qualify as a material fact for the purposes of omission arguments.
Publication Date: 2022-07-26
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Construction | Investments and Investment Advisory | Transportation
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew W. Lentz, plaintiff pro se
for defendant: Shah Mathias, defendant pro se; Debra Mathias, defendant pro se; Robert Choiniere, defendant pro se; Bryan Elicker, defendant pro se; Robert Todd Reynold, defendant pro se; James Becker, defendant pro se; Steve Trout, defendant pro se; John W. Thompson, defendant pro se; Shahjahan C. Mathias, defendant pro se; Donald E. Williams, Jr., defendant pro se; Keith Doyle, defendant pro se; Suhail Matthias, defendant pro se; James Kingsborough, defendant pro se; Joseph Silbaugh, defendant pro se; Kevin Eisenhart, defendant pro se; Kurt Bauer, defendant pro se.
Case Number: D69894
Court issued temporary injunction barring tender offer after finding that controllers provided misleading and false disclosures in connection with the offer and had made coercive threats to induce non-tendering stockholders to tender.
Publication Date: 2022-04-12
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Entertainment and Leisure | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joseph Benedict Cicero, Aidan T. Hamilton, Gregory Erich Stuhlman, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Matthew J. Reynolds, Sara G. Wilcox, Huth Reynolds LLP, New York, NY & Denver, CO; Ned C. Weinberger, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Daniel A. O’Brien, Brian L. Schwalb, Venable LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69779
Minority stockholders plausibly alleged that controlling shareholder used insider knowledge to mislead the minority stockholders into being bought out for an unfair price where the now wholly owned company represented almost all the attributed value of the controlling shareholder, which soon after went public for a much higher price than the minority stockholders sold out for.
Publication Date: 2022-04-12
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Energy | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Sue L. Robinson, Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew J. Entwistle, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Austin, TX; Vincent R. Cappucci, Arthur V. Nealon, Brendan J. Brodeur, Jonathan H. Beemer, Jessica A. Margulis, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, New York, NY; Marc M. Seltzer, Krysta Kauble Pachman, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: A. Thompson Bayliss, April M. Kirby, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alan S. Goudiss, K. Mallory Brennan, Shearman & Sterling LLP, New York, NY; Christina E. Myrold, Shearman & Sterling LLP, San Francisco, CA for defendants.
Case Number: D69781
Motion to dismiss Exchange Act violations denied where plaintiffs plausibly alleged that defendant board had acknowledged that a competing merger offer constituted a better value and would provide stockholders with a higher price, and knew at the time of voting to approve another offer that the competing bidder was willing to continue discussing more favorable terms of merger.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read