Search for: "Andrew J. Rosen" Results 101 - 120 of 173
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jan 2018, 4:18 pm by Kevin LaCroix
”  On defendants’ motion to dismiss, the district court (Crotty, J.) rejected defendants’ argument that these statements were inactionable puffery, but did dismiss claims related to Goldman Sachs’s failure to disclose its receipt of a “Wells Notice” from the SEC.[2] Plaintiffs moved for class certification, relying upon Basic’s fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance.[3] In opposing class certification, defendants attempted to rebut the… [read post]
12 Nov 2017, 11:00 pm by Kevin LaCroix
A recurring issue in securities cases involves the question of when plaintiffs may rely on the presumption of reliance under the fraud on the market doctrine. [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 4:25 pm by Matthew Scott Johnson
Andrew Hessick, Civilizing Criminal Settlements, 97 B.U.L. [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 8:51 am by Eric Goldman
By Jeremy Rosen, Scott Dixler and Matthew Samet at Horwitz & Levy. * Amicus Brief: Airbnb, Automattic, Craigslist, Facebook, IAC, Reddit, Snap, Pinterest, Thumbtack, Twitter and Yahoo. [read post]
13 Jan 2017, 6:11 am
Vitale, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, on Tuesday, January 10, 2017 Tags: Audits, Banks, Cybersecurity, Disclosure, Information environment, Inside information, Institutional Investors, New York, Privacy, Reporting regulation, Risk assessment, Risk management Mergers and Acquisitions—A Brief Look Back and a View Forward Posted by Andrew Brownstein and Steven Rosenblum, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, on Tuesday, January 10, 2017 Tags: Antitrust, Cross-border… [read post]
11 Nov 2016, 4:07 am by Kevin LaCroix
In the following guest post, attorneys from the Paul Weiss law firm review and analyze a November 3, 2016  Second Circuit decision (here)  in which the appellate court held that the standard pre-IPO lock-up agreements between a company’s pre-IPO shareholders and the company’s lead IPO underwriters do not make those parties a “group” within Section 13(d) of the ’34 Act, and therefore that the lock-up agreement alone is insufficient to trigger Section 16(b)… [read post]