Tag Archives: SECURITIES LAW

A PLAGUE OF LOCUSTS: THE JOBS ACT AS FOE MORE THAN FRIEND

AMY COLEMAN

Securities Law – The Jumpstart Our Businesses Startups Act–Emerging Growth Companies– The Act’s deregulation of a heavily regulated stock market flies in the face of the historical importance of disclosure in Securities Regulation and the potential dangers may be displayed in a case analysis of the Initial Public Offerings of Facebook, Inc. and Twitter, Inc.

Continue Reading>

Comments Off on A PLAGUE OF LOCUSTS: THE JOBS ACT AS FOE MORE THAN FRIEND

Filed under Volume 16-1

THE TIMELINESS OF FILING A PRIVATE SECURITIES FRAUD VIOLATION DEPENDS UPON THE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE DISCOVERY OF SCIENTERRELATED FACTS: MERCK & CO. INC. V. REYNOLDS

BY KAREN KANE

The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed a judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit against Merck & Co. by holding that the complaint filed by the investors was not barred by the limitations period but was timely because the investors had not discovered the scienter facts material to the violation by either actual or constructive discovery.
Continue Reading>

Comments Off on THE TIMELINESS OF FILING A PRIVATE SECURITIES FRAUD VIOLATION DEPENDS UPON THE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE DISCOVERY OF SCIENTERRELATED FACTS: MERCK & CO. INC. V. REYNOLDS

Filed under Volume 13-1

THE THIRD CIRCUIT DECLINES TO RECOGNIZE THE FRAUD CREATED THE MARKET THEORY AS A MEANS OF PRESUMING RELIANCE IN CLASS ACTION SECURITIES FRAUD CASES: MALACK V. BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

BY JESSE KRUEGER

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed denial of class certification to note purchaser on basis that reasonable reliance could not be presumed based on the fraud created the market theory and that the fraud created the market theory does not apply…
Continue Reading>

Comments Off on THE THIRD CIRCUIT DECLINES TO RECOGNIZE THE FRAUD CREATED THE MARKET THEORY AS A MEANS OF PRESUMING RELIANCE IN CLASS ACTION SECURITIES FRAUD CASES: MALACK V. BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

Filed under Volume 13-1

Injured Investors are Without a Private Right of Action Against Aiders and Abettors of Primary Actors Where the Investors Did Not Rely on the Secondary Actors…

BY DENNIS HOUGH

The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit by denying an injured investor‘s private right of action against aiders and abettors of the primary actor because the investor did not rely on the secondary actors‘ actions.
Continue Reading>

Comments Off on Injured Investors are Without a Private Right of Action Against Aiders and Abettors of Primary Actors Where the Investors Did Not Rely on the Secondary Actors…

Filed under Volume 11-1