… MissPERS’s lawyers told U.S. District Judge William Alsup that he can be sure the fund will do a good job on behalf of all Diamond shareholders because MissPERS has plenty of experience as a lead plaintiff.

The New England fund contends that’s exactly why Mississippi shouldn’t get the appointment in the Diamond case. In a Feb. 9 response to the MissPERS bid, Robbins Geller argued that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act bars investors from serving as lead plaintiff in more than five cases in any three-year period…. By the New England fund’s count, MissPERS has been a lead plaintiff in “as many as 16″ cases in the last three years — three times as many as the PSLRA limit.

via Diamond Foods: Is Miss. pension fund a professional plaintiff?–On the Case

Shareholders suing Bank of America Corp on Monday won class-action status for their lawsuit accusing the bank and various executives and directors of fraudulently misleading them about the 2008 takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co. and size of Merrill’s losses and bonus payouts.

via UPDATE 1-BofA investor lawsuit wins class-action status | Reuters.

Carlyle Group LP abandoned a plan to ban shareholders from filing class-action lawsuits after U.S. regulators threatened to block a stock sale the private-equity firm is seeking to complete as soon as April.

via Carlyle Drops Class-Action Lawsuit Ban as Opposition Mounts – Businessweek.

Securities class action filings in Canada reached their highest level to date in 2011 with 15 new filings, according to NERA Economic Consulting’s annual report, Trends In Canadian Securities Class Actions: 2011 Update. The previous high was 12 filings in 2008.

via Filings of Securities Class Actions in Canada Reach New High -NERA press release

It is quite possible that the Carlyle Group, the private equity firm that is preparing to go public, is proposing the most shareholder-unfriendly corporate governance structure in modern history.

via Carlyle Readies an Unfriendly I.P.O. for Shareholders – NYTimes.com.

The changing mix of corporate and securities litigation is a recent phenomenon on which I have frequently commented on this blog. While identifying the fact of the change is relatively straightforward, explaining it is more challenging. According to a January 11, 2012 article in The Review of Securities & Commodities Regulation entitled “Shareholder Litigation After the Fall of an Iron Curtain”, written by Boris Feldman of the Wilson Sonsini law firm, the changing pattern in corporate and securities litigation filings is a result of changes in the plaintiffs’ securities litigation bar – particularly, the elimination of a dominant plaintiffs’ firm. These changes, according to Feldman, have resulted in the five recent securities litigation trends he identifies in his article.

via Changes in the Plaintiffs’ Class Action Bar and the Changing World of Shareholder Litigation: The D&O Diary.

The buyout firm this month amended a regulatory filing to require future shareholders to resolve claims against it through arbitration. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which blocked an initial public offering with a less-restrictive arbitration clause more than 20 years ago, must decide whether to allow Washington-based Carlyle’s offering to proceed.

via Carlyle Curbing Shareholder Rights Irritates Lawmakers Who See Precedent – Bloomberg.

A report issued today by the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse in cooperation with Cornerstone Research offers a number of interesting findings about securities class action filings in 2011, including a surge in litigation against Chinese issuers.

via Stanford/Cornerstone Reports Breaks Down 2011 Securities Class Actions – Compliance Week.

On January 17, 2012, in a development with important implications for the evolution of post-Morrison remedies for non-U.S. investors, a Dutch court has held for the first time that a collective securities settlement is legally binding. Of even greater significance, the decision arose in a circumstance where none of the liable parties and few of the claimants were domiciled in the Netherlands. The court’s action suggests the possibility of a potentially important mechanism for aggrieved investors who bought shares outside the U.S. to obtain compensation.

via Dutch Court Holds Collective Securities Settlement to Be Binding : The D&O Diary

A few months ago, this blog noted an unusual lead plaintiff decision. A S.D.N.Y. court dismissed the lead plaintiff from a securities class action brought against Smith Barney Fund Management and Citigroup Global Markets because, after six years of litigation, it was revealed that the entity had not actually purchased the securities at issue. So what happened to the case? All is revealed in the court’s most recent order, along with some new twists and turns.

via Ample Assistance–The 10b-5 Daily