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
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.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
How AI Has Affected PR
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.