United States: What Companies Don’t Know Can Hurt Them: Monopolization Offenses - Vinson & Elkins LLP
In contrast to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which applies only to concerted action, Section 2 reaches the unilateral activity of companies.
act
action
activity
elkins llp
monopolization
section
sherman
states
united
vinson
Found 1 month ago on channel
Mondaq
United States: Supreme Court's Decision Reshapes Class Certification For Future Securities Class Actions - Holland & Knight
On February 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a long-standing circuit split on the issue of whether, when bringing a securities fraud class action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's alleged misrepresentations are material at the class certification stage and whether a lack of materiality can be used by the defendant to rebut the "fraud-on-the-market" presumption of reliance.
act
action
certification
court
decision
exchange
holland
knight
materiality
misrepresentation
presumption
reliance
section
securities
states
supreme
united
Found 1 month ago on channel
Mondaq
United States: Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Plaintiffs In Amgen Securities Class Action - Pepper Hamilton LLP
Continuing its recent trend of handing down plaintiff-friendly decisions in private securities class actions brought under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b-5 (Rule 10b-5 actions), the U.S. Supreme Court held in Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, No. 11-1085, 568 U.S., that plaintiffs need not prove materiality as a prerequisite to class certification.
act
action
amgen
certification
connecticut
court
decision
exchange
hamilton llp
materiality
pepper
retirement
sec
section
securities
states
supreme
united
Found more than 1 month ago on channel
Mondaq
United States: Supreme Court Holds That Securities Fraud Plaintiffs Need Not Show Materiality At Class Certification - Mayer Brown
Today, in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, No. 11-1085, the Supreme Court held that proof of materiality is not a prerequisite for class certification in a securities fraud class action under Section 10(b), even though materiality is a predicate of the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance.
action
amgen
brown
certification
connecticut
court
materiality
mayer
presumption
reliance
retirement
section
securities
states
supreme
united
Found more than 1 month ago on channel
Mondaq
United States: Amgen: The Basic Problem - Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson
This week, in a 6 - 3 decision, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff bringing a securities class action under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act need not prove the materiality of the putative misstatement at the class certification stage to invoke the presumption of reliance established in Basic v. Levinson.
act
action
amgen
certification
court
decision
exchange
frank
fried
harris
jacobson
levinson
materiality
misstatement
presumption
reliance
section
securities
shriver
states
supreme
united
Found more than 1 month ago on channel
Mondaq