CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2012

In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation

Plaintiffs moved for class certification in a securities fraud lawsuit against Bank of America Corporation (BofA) concerning alleged misstatements and omissions related to its acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. The claims were brought under both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. The Court, presided over by District Judge P. Kevin Castel, granted the motion to certify all proposed classes, including those for 1934 Act claims, 1933 Act claims, and purchasers of January 2011 call options. The Court found that the plaintiffs satisfied all Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements for class certification, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding the merits of the Section 14(a) claim, the rebuttable presumptions of reliance, and the scope of the class definitions. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP were appointed as class counsel.

Class ActionSecurities FraudRule 23 CertificationPredominance RequirementNumerosity RequirementCommonality RequirementTypicality RequirementAdequacy of RepresentationSecurities Exchange Act of 1934Securities Act of 1933
References
63
Case No. 14-cv-9662
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2015

In re Petrobras Securities Litigation

This case involves a putative class action where Lead Plaintiff Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd. (USS), along with Union Asset Management Holding AG and Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, sued Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. — Petrobras, its subsidiaries, former officers and directors, independent auditor PwC, and several underwriters. Plaintiffs allege a multi-year, multi-billion dollar bribery and kickback scheme at Petrobras, leading to false and misleading statements in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933, and Brazilian law. The alleged scheme involved inflated contracts and kickbacks, causing overvaluation of Petrobras's assets and a decline in its securities' price. The Court largely denied defendants' motion to dismiss Exchange Act claims for failure to plead materiality and scienter. However, some Securities Act claims were dismissed due to the statute of repose or lack of reliance, while others related to standing were granted leave to amend. Brazilian law claims were dismissed due to a mandatory arbitration provision in Petrobras's bylaws, found valid under Brazilian law, but this provision was not applied to the Exchange Act claims.

Securities LitigationClass ActionBriberyKickbacksCorporate FraudFinancial MisstatementsSecurities Exchange ActSecurities ActBrazilian LawMotion to Dismiss
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re OSG Securities Litigation

This case involves lead plaintiffs Stichting Pensioenfonds DSM Nederland, Indiana Treasurer of State, and Lloyd Crawford, who filed a class action lawsuit against various individual, auditor, and underwriter defendants following a Senior Notes Offering by Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. (OSG). OSG later filed for bankruptcy and is not a party. Plaintiffs allege violations of federal securities laws, specifically Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, claiming OSG failed to disclose significant tax liabilities under Section 956. The court denied the motions to dismiss filed by the Auditor and Underwriter Defendants. However, the court granted the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims due to insufficient allegations of scienter, but denied the motion with respect to the Securities Act claims. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotions to DismissSecurities Act of 1933Securities Exchange Act of 1934Rule 10b-5Auditor LiabilityUnderwriter LiabilityCorporate Tax LiabilitySection 956 Internal Revenue Code
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Franklin Bank Corp. Securities Litigation

This is a consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit involving two groups of investors: the Franklin Investor Group (common stock purchasers) and the Harold Roucher Trust (preferred stock purchasers), against Franklin Bank Corp. officers, directors, its auditor Deloitte & Touche LLP, and underwriter RBC Capital Markets Corporation. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5, 20(a)) and the Securities Act of 1933 (Sections 11, 15), claiming that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the bank's financial condition, accounting practices, and loan portfolios, which led to their stock becoming worthless. The Court, presided over by Judge Keith P. Ellison, granted all motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead scienter for the 10(b) claims and failed to demonstrate material misstatements or omissions for the Section 11 claims. Consequently, the entire class action lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.

Securities FraudClass Action LawsuitMotion to DismissPleading StandardsScienter RequirementSecurities Exchange Act of 1934Securities Act of 1933Financial ReportingAccounting IrregularitiesCorporate Officer Liability
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re LILCO Securities Litigation

The case involves plaintiff shareholders of LILCO who filed a consolidated class action against LILCO, its corporate officers and directors, a group of underwriters, and the accounting firm Price Waterhouse. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and common law claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including failure to plead fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b) and failure to state a claim. The court denied the defendants' motions, clarifying that fraud particularity is not required for Section 11 claims and finding the Section 10(b) claim adequately pleaded. While the common law fraud claim was deemed overbroad and limited, the court confirmed its pendent jurisdiction over state law claims, ensuring the case proceeds.

Securities LitigationClass ActionMotion to DismissRule 9(b)Securities FraudNegligent MisrepresentationPendent JurisdictionCorporate GovernanceInvestment BankingAccounting Malpractice
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Phillips v. Kidder, Peabody & Co.

This purported class action was initiated by Robert Phillips against Kidder, Peabody & Co., alleging various securities violations and common law fraud related to the non-disclosure of market conditions in Computer Depot, Inc.'s prospectus. Phillips' claims included violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 12(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5. Defendant Kidder filed two motions: one for transferring the case to the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, citing reasons like duplicative litigation and witness convenience, and another for requiring Phillips to post an undertaking for litigation costs under Section 11(e) of the Securities Act of 1933. The court denied both motions, finding Kidder failed to demonstrate that transfer was appropriate or that Phillips' action was brought in bad faith or was frivolous at this early stage.

Securities FraudClass ActionTransfer of VenueUndertakingSecurities Act of 1933Securities Exchange Act of 1934Rule 10b-5Motion DenialFederal Civil ProcedureDistrict Court
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Tavella

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) moved for default judgment against eight defendants involved in a penny-stock scheme related to Biozoom. The defendants, including Magdalena Tavella and others, were accused of making false representations to broker-dealers and illegally selling unregistered shares. The court found the defendants liable for violating Section 5 of the 1933 Act. A permanent injunction was issued, and disgorgement of illegal proceeds was ordered. However, the final entry of judgment was deferred to allow the SEC to provide further information on prejudgment interest. Civil penalties of $160,000 were imposed on each defendant, lower than the maximum sought by the SEC.

Securities FraudDefault JudgmentPenny Stock SchemeUnregistered SecuritiesSection 5 ViolationAsset FreezeDisgorgementPrejudgment InterestCivil PenaltiesMarket Manipulation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Competitive Associates, Inc. v. Fantastic Fudge, Inc.

Defendant Chartered New England Corp. moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging it was time-barred and failed to state a claim, while also seeking an order for plaintiffs to post security for costs and attorney's fees. The lawsuit, brought by Competitive Associates, Inc., asserted violations of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934, including claims related to failure to provide a prospectus and a conspiracy to defraud in the purchase of securities from entities like Fantastic Fudge, Inc. The court largely denied the motion to dismiss, finding questions of fact regarding the discovery of untrue statements and the alleged fraudulent scheme, thereby sustaining claims under §§ 12(1), 12(2), 17(a) of the 1933 Act, and §§ 15, 10(b) of the 1934 Act. Although it denied the request for attorney's fees security, the court ordered plaintiffs to post a single original bond of $2,400 for costs, citing the considerable expenses defendants would incur during discovery.

Securities Act of 1933Securities Exchange Act of 1934Motion to DismissStatute of LimitationsFraudulent ConcealmentFailure to State a ClaimSecurity for CostsBroker-Dealer LiabilityProspectus OmissionConspiracy to Defraud
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barco v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Plaintiff Jordan M. Barco brought an action under the Social Security Act, seeking review of the Commissioner's final decision to deny his application for supplemental security income (SSI). The case involved cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, reviewed by the District Court to determine if the Social Security Administration's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and based on correct legal standards, following a five-step disability evaluation process. The Court found the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) mischaracterized a treating psychiatrist's opinion, violating the "good reasons" rule under the treating physician rule. Consequently, the Plaintiff's motion was granted in part, the Commissioner's motion denied, and the case remanded for further administrative proceedings.

Social Security ActSupplemental Security IncomeDisability BenefitsALJ DecisionTreating Physician RuleRemandMedical OpinionRFCMental ImpairmentsLumbar Spine
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McMahan Securities Co. v. Aviator Master Fund, Ltd.

Petitioner McMahan Securities Co., L.R., a securities broker-dealer, sought to stay an arbitration claim initiated by various hedge funds and institutional investors (respondents) before the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), now FINRA. The arbitration claim arose from respondents' purchase of $50 million worth of preferred stock units from nonparties Strategy Real Estate Investments, Ltd. (SREI) and Strategy International Insurance Group, Inc. (SIIG), where McMahan acted as a placement agent. Respondents alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Blue Sky laws, claiming McMahan failed to disclose criminal convictions and legal problems of Strategy's management team and misrepresented Strategy's financial status. McMahan argued that respondents were not its 'customers' under NASD rule 12200 and that a forum selection clause in the subscription agreement precluded arbitration. The court denied McMahan's petition, finding that respondents qualified as McMahan's customers under a broad interpretation of NASD rules and that the dispute arose from McMahan's business activities, thus compelling arbitration. The court also rejected McMahan's attempt to invoke the subscription agreement's forum selection clause, as McMahan was not a signatory to that agreement.

ArbitrationSecurities LawNASD Code of Arbitration ProcedureFINRAPlacement AgentFraud AllegationsNegligent MisrepresentationBlue Sky LawsContract InterpretationForum Selection Clause
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 8,366 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational