Webcasts
Now On Securities Docket
Join Us On LinkedIn
Join the Securities Litigation and Enforcement Group on LinkedIn
Re-posted for those who did not catch it over the holiday weekend:
Guest columnist Justin N. Saif of law firm Berman DeValerio writes that a recent Fifth Circuit opinion that revived a securities class action and included language strongly supportive of securities plaintiffs is attracting plenty of attention, not least because retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor sat on the panel.
Guest columnists Mary Eaton and Roger Netzer of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP write that Judge Sotomayor’s track record both as a United States District Court Judge and as a member of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit belies the suggestion that she has an “anti-business” tendency with respect to private securities law issues. Their analysis shows that, with few exceptions, Judge Sotomayor has tended to side with corporate defendants on private securities litigation matters during her 17 years on the bench.
Guest columnist Michael MacPhail of Holland & Hart writes that the issuance of a Wells notice presents defense counsel with an opportunity to learn about the proposed case against their client. Granting access to the entire investigative file (including the testimony transcripts of other witnesses) is a key part of the Wells process, since it permits defense counsel to more intelligently advise clients of the risks of possible enforcement action, facilitates the preparation of more focused and helpful Wells submissions, and encourages better and quicker resolutions of proposed enforcement actions. Yet the standards governing whether to grant such access, and their application by the staff, are arbitrary and capricious.
Guest columnist Richard Gallagher writes about a recent order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granting summary judgment to the defense on loss causation grounds in In re Retek Inc. Securities Litigation. On the basis of the court’s loss causation analysis, the court dismissed all of the remaining claims in the case, which arose under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act. The Court’s ruling is significant because it provides a thorough review of loss causation principles as they apply at the summary judgment stage, as opposed to the pleading stage.
In this guest column, Douglas S. Kantor and Philip S. Khinda, partners with the law firm of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, discuss how the Office of the New York Attorney General has stepped to the fore and become a player on the national stage. They write that the NYAG’s success has been a product of its ability to move quickly and creatively in enforcing the law and applying its vision of proper corporate conduct.
Should outside directors on corporate boards of directors request that the companies’ boards companies purchase Individual Director Liability (IDL) insurance for them? In a guest column, Scott N. Godes of Dickstein Shapiro writes that generally speaking, IDL insurance is just for outside or independent directors of a company and, depending on the form in which it is written, may offer independent directors additional insurance protection if the corporate policyholder’s insurers were to attempt to deny or rescind coverage under the policyholder’s directors and officers insurance policy.
Guest columnist Adam Kemal-Brooke, Special Counsel with the law firm Fishburns in London, explains the current state of “UK Group Litigation” and where it may be headed in the future.
Guest columnists Lawrence D. Finder and Ryan D. McConnell offer highlights of their new article that updates their deferred prosecution agreement and non-prosecution agreement statistics.
Should a directors and officers (D&O) insurance policy cover derivative claims? And should a D&O insurance policy advance defense costs? A recent decision from New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, reaffirmed that the answer is “yes” to both questions, and rejected an insurance company’s arguments to the contrary.
Guest columnists George T. Conway III and Lauryn P. Gouldin of the law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz discuss the Second Circuit’s decision in National Australia Bank, which they describe as a significant victory for foreign companies.