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

Morse v. Weingarten

This case involves a securities fraud class action where plaintiffs, shareholders of First Capital Holdings Corp., alleged that defendant Michael Milken violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, and committed common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs claimed Milken, through his 'Daisy Chain' scheme, caused First Capital to invest heavily in junk bonds, leading to its collapse and misleading statements about its financial health. Milken moved to dismiss all claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and 9(b) for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity, and to strike portions of the complaint under Rule 12(f). The court granted Milken's motion to dismiss all claims, finding that Morse failed to adequately allege a primary violation of Section 10(b) due to a lack of 'in connection with' and causation, insufficient knowledge for aider and abettor liability, insufficient control for control person liability, and inadequate pleading of conspiracy. The common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims were also dismissed for similar reasons, and the court granted the motion to strike references to Milken's criminal conviction and income as immaterial.

Securities FraudClass Action LawsuitMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b)Aiding and AbettingControl Person LiabilityConspiracyCommon Law FraudNegligent Misrepresentation
References
26
Case No. 02 Civ. 910
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2006

In Re Alstom SA Securities Litigation

The lead plaintiffs, a group of retirement systems and a union, filed a class action lawsuit alleging securities fraud against Alstom S.A., its subsidiaries Alstom Transportation Inc. (ATI), Alstom USA, and executives Stephan Rambaud-Measson and Joseph Janovec. The claims involve violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, stemming from ATI's alleged understatement of costs on railcar contracts, particularly for New Jersey Transit. These accounting improprieties purportedly led to an overstatement of Alstom's income in public financial reports. The District Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged scienter against Alstom, active participation and scienter against Rambaud-Measson and Janovec, and a plausible veil-piercing theory for Alstom USA's liability. The decision allows the case to proceed, underscoring that the plaintiffs' detailed new allegations, including executive knowledge of cost overruns, met the heightened pleading standards for fraud and control liability.

Securities fraudClass actionAlstomFinancial misstatementsExchange ActSection 10(b) violationSection 20(a) violationMotion to dismissScienterCorporate veil-piercing
References
53
Case No. Nos. 96 Civ. 7435 (JSR), 96 Civ. 8141 (JSR)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 1997

In Re Baesa Securities Litigation

This case consolidates two class actions alleging securities fraud against Buenos Aires Embotelladora S.A. (Baesa), Pepsico Inc., and Charles H. Beach. Plaintiffs claimed defendants issued false statements overstating Baesa's financial position, particularly concerning its Brazilian subsidiary. The court addressed the Private Securities Reform Act of 1995, concluding that "recklessness" still constitutes scienter, but "motive and opportunity" are no longer automatically sufficient to infer fraudulent intent. The complaint was dismissed for failing to plead scienter with sufficient particularity, as subsidiary fraud cannot be automatically imputed to the parent. However, plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days.

Securities FraudPrivate Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995Scienter Pleading StandardRecklessnessMotive and OpportunityClass ActionCorporate MisconductPleading RequirementsConsolidated ActionsLeave to Replead
References
26
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Blech Securities Litigation

This opinion addresses a motion for class certification in consolidated actions alleging securities and common law fraud. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class against various defendants, including Bear Stearns & Co. and Baird Patrick & Co., for a scheme to manipulate the prices of 'Blech Securities' between October 1991 and September 1994. The court reviewed the class action requirements under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Finding that these requirements were satisfied, the court granted the motion for class certification, with the creation of three subclasses to manage the litigation efficiently.

Securities FraudClass ActionMarket ManipulationBroker-DealerInvestment BankingBiotechnology StocksRule 23Federal Civil ProcedureFraud and DeceitConsolidated Actions
References
52
Case No. MDL-1446; Civil Action Nos. H-01-3624, H-02-4788 (COORDINATED)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2007

In Re Enron Corporation Securities, Derivative

This multidistrict litigation involves claims against the Outside Directors of Enron Corporation following its collapse. Plaintiffs, including various Ohio Retirement Systems, alleged negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting common law fraud, and violations of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Outside Directors sought to dismiss all claims, arguing that Rule 9(b) heightened pleading standards applied and that claims were time-barred. The court granted dismissal for the aiding and abetting common law fraud claims but denied it for Section 18 and negligent misrepresentation, providing plaintiffs 30 days to amend their pleadings to meet particularity requirements for actual reliance and fraudulent intent, given the complexity of the alleged fraud. The court also clarified that outside directors who signed SEC-filed documents containing misrepresentations may be liable under Section 18.

Securities FraudNegligent MisrepresentationAiding and AbettingRule 9(b) PleadingPSLRASection 18 LiabilityOutside Director LiabilityStatute of LimitationsInquiry NoticeCorporate Governance
References
118
Case No. 91 Civ. 8647(JES)
Regular Panel Decision

JSC Securities, Inc. v. Gebbia

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses motions for summary judgment in three related federal actions stemming from alleged securities fraud. Plaintiffs, including JSC Securities, Inc., Horgan, and Beatus plaintiffs, asserted violations of the Securities and Exchange Act, RICO, common law fraud, and fraudulent conversion against various defendants following a securities transaction and subsequent default. The court applied principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel, giving preclusive effect to a prior NYSE arbitration award that had largely denied similar claims against some defendants. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment in the JSC and Horgan actions were granted, dismissing federal claims against Securities Group Defendants, The Jesup Group, and UPAC. All remaining state law claims were also dismissed due to the absence of federal subject matter jurisdiction, and a pre-trial conference was scheduled for the Beatus action.

Securities FraudRICORes JudicataCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentNYSE ArbitrationSecurities Exchange ActCommon Law FraudConspiracyCorporate Control
References
30
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

Cohen v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.

The case involves investors (Sarah and Leopold Cohen) in Jefferson Hotel Associates Limited Partnership suing Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. and other defendants for securities fraud related to the sale of limited partnership units. Plaintiffs alleged fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions in the offering memorandum for the Jefferson Sheraton Hotel, which ultimately went bankrupt. The District Court, presided over by Judge Leisure, dismissed the federal securities fraud claims under sections 10(b) and 12(2) of the Securities Act due to being time-barred, applying the Supreme Court's retroactive decision in Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson. Consequently, the pendent state law claims were also dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint to establish an independent jurisdictional basis for the state law claims.

Securities FraudLimited Partnership UnitsStatute of LimitationsRetroactive Application of LawFederal Securities LawPendent JurisdictionRule 10b-5Securities Act of 1933Securities Exchange Act of 1934Motion to Dismiss
References
18
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
Showing 1-10 of 3,229 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