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

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. 02 Civ. 3288(DLC), 03 Civ. 0167, 03 Civ. 0168, 03 Civ. 0169, 03 Civ. 0170, 03 Civ. 0171, 03 Civ. 0337, 03 Civ. 0890, 03 Civ. 0891, 03 Civ. 0892, 03 Civ. 1283, 03 Civ. 1284, 03 Civ. 2839, 03 Civ. 3859, 03 Civ. 3860, 03 Civ. 4499, 03 Civ. 4500, 03 Civ. 6226, 03 Civ. 6227, 03 Civ. 6592, 03 Civ. 7297, 03 Civ. 7806, 03 Civ. 8269, 03 Civ. 8270, 03 Civ. 8271, 03 Civ. 8923, 03 Civ. 8924, 03 Civ. 9168, 03 Civ. 9400, 03 Civ. 9401, 03 Civ. 9402, 03 Civ. 9823, 03 Civ. 9824
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2004

In Re Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation

This case addresses motions for reconsideration and dismissal in a multi-district litigation stemming from the WorldCom, Inc. financial collapse. The court affirmed that Section 13 of the Securities Act, not the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's Section 804, dictates the statute of limitations for Section 11 and 12(a)(2) claims, as these actions were deliberately pleaded as strict liability/negligence rather than fraud. It also held that the 'American Pipe' tolling doctrine does not apply to individual actions filed independently before class certification, leading to many time-barred claims. Furthermore, the court upheld the dismissal of a Section 12(a)(2) claim regarding a December 2000 private placement, affirming that such placements fall outside the scope of Section 12(a)(2). Requests for leave to amend complaints were largely denied due to lack of diligence and bad faith in strategic pleading.

Securities LitigationClass ActionStatute of LimitationsSarbanes-Oxley ActSecurities Act of 1933American Pipe Tolling DoctrineRule 15(c) Relation-BackPrivate PlacementMotion to DismissMotion for Reconsideration
References
56
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. 09-CV-4074 (ADS)(AKT)
Regular Panel Decision

In re Gentiva Securities Litigation

This case involves a consolidated securities fraud class action filed by the Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System (LACERS) against Gentiva Health Services, Inc., and several of its executives. LACERS alleged that Gentiva inflated its stock price by ordering medically unnecessary home health services and billing Medicare for them. After initial dismissals and amendments, the court addressed a motion for partial reconsideration. The court dismissed remaining claims against former CFO John R. Potapchuk and the corporate entity Gentiva but sustained Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims against former CEO Ronald A. Malone, based on a theory of motive and opportunity related to insider stock sales.

Securities FraudClass ActionStock ManipulationMedicare FraudScienterMotive and OpportunityControl Person LiabilityPSLRARule 10b-5Securities Exchange Act of 1934
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2003

In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & ERISA

This case, referred to as the 'Tittle action,' involves class action claims brought by Enron employees who participated in three pension benefit plans (Savings Plan, ESOP, and Cash Balance Plan). Plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary and co-fiduciary duties under ERISA, RICO violations, and Texas common law claims (negligent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy) against Enron, its officers, directors, administrative committees, Arthur Andersen, Vinson & Elkins, and several investment banks. The court grants motions to dismiss for most RICO and common law claims, citing preemption by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) and the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), as the underlying conduct is actionable as securities fraud. However, the court largely denies motions to dismiss for the ERISA claims, allowing them to proceed, finding that plaintiffs have adequately stated claims for breach of fiduciary duty related to imprudent investments in Enron stock, plan lockdowns, and failure to diversify plan assets. The decision outlines the various duties and liabilities of fiduciaries, co-fiduciaries, and non-fiduciaries under ERISA.

ERISAFiduciary DutyCo-Fiduciary LiabilityDirected TrusteeSecurities Litigation Reform ActSLUSA PreemptionClass ActionPension PlansESOP401(k) Plan
References
247
Case No. 02 Civ. 5571(RJH)
Regular Panel Decision

In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses defendants' motion for partial summary judgment concerning plaintiffs' standing in a securities litigation against Vivendi Universal S.A., Jean-Marie Messier, and Guillaume Hannezo. The central issue is whether various investment management companies, suing on behalf of investment funds and their investors, possess constitutional standing under the "Huff exception." The court examines the legal structures of numerous foreign investment vehicles from Germany, Luxembourg, France, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, and Denmark. It concludes that most management companies for German, Luxembourgian FCPs, French FCPs, Belgian FCPs, Swedish, and Austrian funds satisfy the Huff exception, denying summary judgment against them. However, the court grants summary judgment against Danish investment companies, finding their relationship with the Associations does not meet the exception's requirements. The opinion also rules that post-filing assignments or substitutions under Rule 17 FRCP can cure standing defects, allowing plaintiffs time to amend their complaints.

Securities LitigationStandingSummary JudgmentInvestment FundsManagement CompaniesArticle III StandingHuff ExceptionRule 17 FRCPClass ActionVivendi Universal
References
18
Case No. MDL No. 2389
Regular Panel Decision

In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities & Derivative Litigation

This opinion and order addresses the defendants' motion to amend and certify a prior December 12, 2013 opinion for interlocutory appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The prior opinion had denied the defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint concerning federal securities claims related to Facebook's 2012 IPO. The current court denies the defendants' motion, finding that they failed to satisfy the high threshold required for § 1292(b) certification. Specifically, the court determined that the defendants did not demonstrate "exceptional circumstances" or that an immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation's termination. The court also found that the questions posed did not involve "controlling questions of law" in a pure sense, as they were fact-specific applications of law. While acknowledging a substantial ground for difference of opinion regarding the misrepresentation issue, the court concluded it was insufficient to warrant interlocutory appeal given the other factors.

Interlocutory AppealSecurities LitigationMotion to DismissMDL PanelFacebook IPOItem 303 Regulation S-KMaterial MisrepresentationSecond Circuit PrecedentSouthern District of New YorkClass Action
References
0
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Hardinge, Inc. Securities Litigation

The plaintiffs, a class of investors led by Paul J. Campbell, filed a class-action lawsuit against Hardinge Inc. and its individual executives, J. Patrick Ervin and Charles R. Trego, alleging securities fraud. Plaintiffs claimed defendants failed to disclose material information regarding Hardinge's transition from a distributor-based sales model to a direct sales force in various regions, as well as production and trade barrier issues in China, during the class period of January 2007 to February 2008. They asserted that these omissions led to inflated stock prices and subsequent economic losses for investors who purchased Hardinge stock. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims lacked sufficient particularity and failed to state a viable cause of action. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice, concluding that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead material misstatements or omissions, nor did they establish a strong inference of scienter required under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act for securities fraud claims.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissPSLRARule 10b-5Corporate DisclosureStock Price ManipulationScienterMaterial OmissionsDirect Sales Strategy
References
68
Showing 1-10 of 3,123 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