Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court's <i>Troice</i> Has Important Risk Management Implications
On Feb. 26, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Chadbourne & Parke v. Troice, 134 S. Ct. 1058 (2014), holding by a 7-2 vote that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) does not preclude state law class actions where the plaintiffs allege that they purchased uncovered securities that the defendants said were backed by securities listed on a national exchange ' a misrepresentation. The court found that the victims of Allen Stanford's multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme could pursue state law class action claims against numerous individuals and companies ' including attorneys, accountants, brokers and investment advisers ' for allegedly aiding and abetting a Ponzi scheme. On April 14, in one of the first applications of Troice, Judge Thomas P. Griesa ruled that a group of Madoff securities investors who suffered losses in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme were permitted to add state law claims to the previously filed class action complaint in In re: Tremont Securities Law, State Law and Insurance Litigation, No. 08-11117 (TPG), 2014 WL 1465713 (S.D.N.Y. April 14, 2014).
Judge Griesa's reversal in Tremont demonstrates the significance of Troice to lawyers and other third-party advisers (who may have increased exposure to secondary liability in securities-related litigation under state law causes of action); and to class-action litigants (who now may have more opportunities to pursue state law claims alongside federal securities law claims). This article discusses: 1) the implications of Troice for third-party advisers with respect to aiding and abetting claims in class actions; and 2) how law firms can limit increased exposure to third-party liability.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.