Optimism does not provide a basis for asserting securities fraud allegations. Puffery does not constitute a material misstatement. Accurate statements of historical facts are not actionable. Mere...
The circuit court held that courts must follow a two-step analysis to determine which presumption of reliance, the Affiliated Ute presumption or the Basic presumption, is applicable in...
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. The Court upheld the Receiver's motion, which included: (1) permanently enjoining the...
In this second appeal arising out of a long-running case based on allegations of a transnational fraudulent scheme-a conspiracy by and among Citigroup, Inc. (Citi); its agents, Citibank (CB) and...
Judge(s):
Jill A. Pryor; Elizabeth L. Branch; and Britt C. Grant
In a decision that reduced Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. 204 (2024), to one footnote, the court ruled that district courts could enter third-party injunctions in SEC Ponzi-scheme...
Judge(s):
EBEL (sitting by designation), BADE, and FORREST, Circuit Court judges
The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit (BAP) dismissed as equitably moot an appeal of the order confirming the liquidating plan of Artesian Future Technology, LLC (AFT) and...
The bankruptcy court (BC), the Third Circuit (Panel) resolved, had misapplied the framework limned in a prior circuit opinion for analyzing the nature of the provided services of some insurers to...
Judge(s):
Julio M. Fuentes; Peter J. Phipps; and Cheryl A. Krause
First, the Court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's finding that appellant was entitled to a contingent fee award for objecting to a derivative action settlement and thereby improving the outcome, and...
Based on the nature of in rem jurisdiction and the limitations on the court’s and Receiver’s equitable power, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court lacked authority to approve the...
Judge(s):
Before JONES, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
AFFIRM the district court’s judgment of dismissal as to Counts 5, 8,
11, and 12. However, it REVERSED the dismissal of Counts 1–4, 6, 9, and 10 and REMAND
