Publications

This month’s Alert discusses three decisions from the Second Circuit: two concerning the application of the presumption of prudence in employee stock drop cases, as well as a ruling that FINRA may not bring judicial actions to enforce its fines. We also address an Eleventh Circuit decision holding that defendants may be liable for misstatements that “prop up” an already inflated stock price.

In addition, we discuss a number of rulings from the Southern District of New York: three noteworthy decisions in Madoff-related cases involving the owners of the New York Mets, Madoff’s family members, and funds run by J. Ezra Merkin; two rulings addressing the question of whether corporations have “ultimate authority” over statements made by their wholly owned subsidiaries within the meaning of the Supreme Court’s holding in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders; and the dismissal of the Lehman ERISA action for a second time.

Finally, we address two decisions from the Delaware courts: an opinion from the Delaware Supreme Court on when transactions should be aggregated for purposes of a successor obligor provision in an indenture agreement; and the Chancery Court’s $1.26 billion damages award in the Southern Peru shareholder derivative litigation.