US Supreme Court issues major securities class action ruling
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs in securities fraud cases do not have to establish materiality before a class can be certified based on the “fraud-on-the-market” theory. Instead, in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, six Justices agreed that materiality is a substantive element of plaintiffs’ fraud claim that can be postponed until summary judgment or trial because it can always be addressed with common proof.
The Court’s holding reaffirmed the Court’s view that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 is primarily concerned with whether a class is “sufficiently cohesive” so that its common questions can be resolved with common answers, and clarified that investigating the merits of a substantive claim in fraud-on-the-market cases is only appropriate at the class certification stage when it is necessary to ensure that all Rule 23 requirements are met…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Hogan Lovells
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Hogan Lovells
Employment News — 14 April 2014: the final straw — employer entitled to take strict view in light of previous warnings
Before his dismissal, the claimant in Disotto Food Ltd v Carlos Santos for misconduct he had been given three warnings about his conduct.
In 2008, the regime for preventing illegal working in the UK was changed by the introduction of civil penalties under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Beyond the headline infrastructure projects, UK construction work is still recovering from the clobbering it took during the slump
When a firm shouts loudly about a landmark merger, as SJ Berwin did when it joined forces with King & Wood Mallesons, departures are always likely to come under the spotlight.