Search for: "Securities Co. v. United States" Results 101 - 120 of 3,974
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Apr 2018, 4:03 pm by John Stigi
This decision establishes important limits on SLUSA preclusion and the scope of the United States Supreme Court’s seminal SLUSA decision, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. [read post]
18 Aug 2015, 5:23 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Halliburton Co., the United States Supreme Court held that in connection with a motion for class certification in a securities class action lawsuit, a defendant should have the opportunity to try to rebut the presumption of reliance by showing that the alleged misrepresentation did not impact the defendant company’s share price. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 10:56 am
Will the United States Supreme Court’s decision on Halliburton impact Canadian securities class actions? [read post]
Ct. 2398 (2014) (“Halliburton II“), where the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant in a securities fraud class action could introduce evidence of a lack of price impact at the class certification stage to show the absence of predominance. [read post]
21 Nov 2018, 5:54 am
Rather, the Court stated that “Section 10(b) reaches the use of a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance only in connection with the purchase or sale of a security listed on an American stock exchange, and the purchase or sale of any other security in the United States. [read post]
18 May 2012, 3:16 pm by bradhendrickslawfirm
The Mountain View Police Department and the Stone County Office of Emergency Management are hoping to bring a mobile unit to the state for combating the problem of distracted driving. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 5:19 pm by April Glaser and Kurt Opsahl
An NSA official said that the agency’s collection methods are “tuned to be looking outside the United States. [read post]
24 May 2010, 7:18 pm by Gilles Cuniberti
The United States Supreme Court has this paradigm case pending before it (Morrison v. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 5:00 am by Jeremy Liles
July 19, 2010), the United States District Court held Plaintiff did not adequately plead scienter under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act’s heightened pleading standards for its securities fraud claim against American Express (“AMEX”). [read post]