Key Points:
While shareholders may only need to establish indirect market causation, there are still significant obstacles for establishing shareholder claims.
Do plaintiffs in a shareholder class action have to show they relied upon misleading or deceptive conduct, or is it enough that the market in general relied upon them, which then affected the share price?
The issue of how causation can be established has been one significant debate in Australian securities class actions involving alleged breaches of the Corporations Act by corporations. It has been unresolved whether shareholders must prove individual reliance on the contravening conduct of companies, or if the conduct affects the market price of shares purchased and/or sold by shareholders is sufficient.
Wednesday, February 1 brought a welcome development for the many correspondent lenders currently defending against claims filed by (or threatened with future lawsuits by) Residential Funding Company (“RFC”) and its successor-in-interest, the ResCap Liquidating Trust (“ResCap”).
On May 17th, a federal district court denied motions to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit alleging that defendants failed to disclose adequately their investment in notes issued by a shell company owned by Lehman Brothers, who provided the principal protection guarantee. Defendants' knowledge regarding the notes and Lehman's insolvency contradicted their public statements, satisfying Rule 10b-5's scienter requirements. Plaintiffs also allege that their losses were exaggerated by defendants' lack of disclosure, adequately alleging loss causation.
In 1984 a Third Circuit panel decided that the automatic stay did not apply to a right to payment which arose under applicable state law after a bankruptcy petition was filed. Avellino & Bienes v. M. Frenville Co., 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1984). The Third Circuit tradition is that the holding of a panel in a precedential opinion is binding on subsequent panels. Until this year Frenville remained good Third Circuit law notwithstanding universal rejection by other circuits.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts recently denied a motion for summary judgment on the issue of damages by investors in Access Cardiosystems, Inc. against one of the defendants, Randall Fincke. The investors had asserted claims against Mr.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held, under California law, that an insurer had no duty to defend an insured actuarial services firm in litigation alleging that the insured’s reserve reviews and rate level recommendations contributed to the insolvency of a medical malpractice self-insurance fund. Zurich Specialties London Limited v. Bickerstaff, Whatley, Ryan & Burkhalter, Inc., 2011 WL 1118463 (9th Cir. Mar. 28, 2011).
The Bankruptcy Code limits the amount a landlord may recover from a bankrupt tenant for damages caused by the termination of a lease of real property. But what if the tenant trashes the landlord's property before turning over the premises? Does the damage limitation apply to the landlord's claim for the cost of cleaning up the mess?
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently upheld a $182.9 million judgment against PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (“PWC”) for allegedly contributing to the failure of Ambassador Insurance Company (“Ambassador”) through negligent auditing. Thabault v. Chait, No. 06-2209 (3d Cir., Sept. 9, 2008).
When the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided Thabault v. Chait, 541 F.3d 512 (3d Cir. 2008), in September 2008, it was the most significant accounting malpractice decision of last year and perhaps the most significant damages case in the last 20 years. Why? Accounting malpractice cases are filled with pitfalls for unsuspecting plaintiffs. Moreover, accounting firms tend to settle cases in which the plaintiffs survive motions predicated on tried-and-true legal defenses and factual hurdles. The result is that few auditing malpractice cases are tried.