News & Analysis as of

Securities Act of 1933 › Securities Fraud › Supreme Court of the United States

The Securities Act of 1933 is a United States federal statute enacted in response to the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression. The Act has two primary purposes: 1) to give investors better... more +
The Securities Act of 1933 is a United States federal statute enacted in response to the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression. The Act has two primary purposes: 1) to give investors better access to material information prior to investing 2) ensure that transactions are not based on fraud. In order to effectuate its dual goals, the Act requires that any offer or sale of securities is registered with the SEC. less -
Cornerstone Research

New Developments in Securities Class Action Litigation in the First Half of 2025

Cornerstone Research on

Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse highlight several developments from recent litigation in their latest report, Securities Class Action Filings—2025 Midyear Assessment....more

Bracewell LLP

Supreme Court Declares SEC Lacks In-House Authority to Impose Civil Penalties

Bracewell LLP on

The United States Supreme Court struck another major blow to the Securities Exchange Commission’s enforcement arsenal, finding that its oft-used practice of imposing monetary penalties in its in-house administrative...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Supreme Court Narrows Securities Fraud Exposure

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

The Supreme Court recently took away an often-used weapon by shareholder plaintiffs in securities fraud cases, ruling that “pure omissions” from periodic SEC filings (absent any other duty to disclose) are not actionable...more

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Supreme Court Not Slack(ers)

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP on

Reading the transcript of oral argument in Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani before the U.S. Supreme Court, I questioned some earlier articles that I have written concerning the importance of the Court when it comes to...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Can the SEC Eradicate The Distinction Between Primary and Secondary Liability?

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

“The distinction between primary and secondary liability matters...For decades...the SEC has tried to erase that distinction...” Lorenzo v. SEC, 872 F. 3d 578, 601 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Kavenaugh, Circuit Judge, dissenting). ...more

Perkins Coie

SCOTUS Upholds Strict Statute of Repose on Federal Section 11 Securities Claims

Perkins Coie on

In a 5-4 decision in California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) v. ANZ Securities, Inc., et al. (No. 16-373), 582 U.S. ___ (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld, at the end of last month, a U.S. Court of Appeals...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

The Supreme Court Holds Statute of Repose Cannot Be Equitably Tolled

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on

Securities defendants can rest easier after the Supreme Court’s decision to strictly construe certain statutory time limits under the Securities Act of 1933. On June 26, 2017, the Court issued its opinion in California Public...more

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Time Limit in Federal Securities Class Actions

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer on

On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., et al. (“CalPERS”) (No. 16–373, 2017 WL 2722415) (U.S. June 26, 2017), holding that the...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

"Near-Record Securities Litigation Filings Show No Signs of Slowing"

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on

Plaintiffs filed 300 securities class actions in 2016 — a mark much higher than the annual average of 221 from 2011 to 2015 (as reported by NERA Economic Consulting). Indeed, the number of filings in 2016 was the...more

CMCP - California Minority Counsel Program

OMNICARE and its Implications

CMCP - California Minority Counsel Program on

In the spring of this year, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, 135 S.Ct. 1318 (2015), resolving a circuit split regarding the...more

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

The Supreme Court's Omnicare Decision: Implications And Remaining Questions Regarding When Opinions Are Actionable Under The...

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP on

On March 24, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, No. 13-435, 2015 WL 1291916 (Mar. 24, 2015). With some significant...more

Morgan Lewis

Omnicare Decision Clarifies Grounds for Section 11 Liability

Morgan Lewis on

The Supreme Court holds that section 11 liability does not attach to a statement of opinion merely because the opinion is objectively false. On March 24, the US Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in...more

Mintz - Securities & Capital Markets...

Supreme Court Holds That Issuers Can Be Liable for Omitting Material Facts From Statements of Opinion in Omnicare Case

Mintz - Securities & Capital Markets... on

In its opinion in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, released yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a securities issuer’s statement of opinion in a registration statement,...more

13 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide