Friday, July 13, 2012
Cloud-Based E-Discovery, Survey Results & Taxation of Costs
Gone Clio with Attorney Andrew Legrand
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/gone-clio/2012/06/gone-clio-with-attorney-andrew-legrand/
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Fifth Circuit Requires More than "Tangential Relationship" Between Alleged Fraud and Transactions in "Covered Securities" to Support Dismissal Under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998
In Roland v. Green, 2012 WL 898557 (5th Cir. Mar. 19, 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that in order for a plaintiff’s state law class action lawsuit alleging fraud to be properly removable to federal court and precluded under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”), the allegations of the fraudulent activity must be more than “tangentially related” to transactions in “covered securities.” In so doing, the Fifth Circuit adopted the Ninth Circuit’s test regarding the scope of the “in connection with” language under SLUSA, declining to follow what it perceived to be more stringent tests applied by other circuits. In light of the clear circuit-split, this issue appears ripe for review by the United States Supreme Court.
In February 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought suit against the Stanford Group Company, along with various other Stanford corporate entities, including the Antigua-based Stanford International Bank (“SIB”), for allegedly perpetrating a massive Ponzi scheme. When the Ponzi scheme collapsed two groups of Louisiana investors filed separate lawsuits against the SEI Investments Company (“SEI”), the Stanford Trust Company, the Trust’s employees and the Trust’s investment advisers alleging violations of Louisiana law. According to plaintiffs, SIB sold CDs to the Trust, which served as the custodian for individual IRA purchases of the CDs. The Trust, in turn, contracted with SEI to administer the Trust, making SEI responsible for reporting the value of the CDs. Plaintiffs alleged that misrepresentations by SEI induced them to use their IRA funds to purchase the CDs.
Defendants sought removal to federal court and dismissal of the case under SLUSA. The preclusion provision of SLUSA provides that “[n]o covered class action based upon the statutory or common law of any State or subdivision thereof may be maintained in any State or Federal court by any private party alleging a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security.” 15 U.S.C.§ 78bb(f)(1)(A) (emphasis added).
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the plaintiffs’ claims were precluded under SLUSA because even though SIB’s CDs were not themselves covered securities, they were purportedly backed by “covered securities.” (Roland was consolidated with two similar class actions.) Plaintiffs appealed.
The Fifth Circuit recognized that the appropriate inquiry under SLUSA was whether the alleged fraudulent scheme was “in connection with” a transaction in a covered security. Because the scope of the SLUSA “in connection with” language was one of first impression for the court, it looked to Supreme Court precedent, Congressional intent and rulings by six other circuits to formulate its standard. The Fifth Circuit initially found the decisions from the Second, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits most useful because they attempted to give dimension to what is sufficiently connected/coincidental to a transaction in covered securities to trigger SLUSA preclusion. However, because each of these Circuits stated the requisite connection in a slightly different formulation, the Fifth Circuit looked to cases where the facts were closer to the allegations in the instant case.
Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the standards articulated by the Second and Eleventh Circuits were too stringent, and instead adopted the Ninth Circuit’s test from Madden v. Cowen & Co., 576 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2009), which provides that a misrepresentation is “in connection with” the purchase or sale of securities if there is a relationship in which the fraud and the stock sale coincide or are more than “tangentially related.” Thus, if the allegations regarding fraud are more than tangentially related to (real or purported) transactions in covered securities, then they are properly removable and precluded under SLUSA.
In application and upon close examination of the “schemes and purposes of the frauds” alleged by Plaintiffs, the Fifth Circuit held that the references to SIB’s portfolio being backed by “covered securities” to be merely tangentially related to the “heart,” “crux,” or “gravamen” of the defendants’ fraud. The Fifth Circuit held that the gravamen of defendants’ allegedly fraudulent scheme was representing to the Plaintiffs that the CDs were a “safe and secure” investment that was preferable to other investments for many reasons. That the CDs were marketed with some vague references to SIB’s portfolio containing instruments that might be SLUSA-covered securities was tangential to the schemes allegedly advanced by the defendants. Thus, SLUSA did not preclude plaintiffs from using their state class actions to pursue recovery.
This decision reflects a complicated, multi-faceted circuit-split on an important aspect of federal securities law, suggesting that the issue is ripe for review by the Supreme Court.
For further information, please contact John Stigi at (310) 228-3717 or Taraneh Fard at (213) 617-5492.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Law Blog ™ of the Day
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/07/09/law-blog-%e2%84%a2-of-the-day/?mod=WSJBlog
Computer-Assisted Coding Implementation, Judicial Commentary & Cloud Computing
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Is Your Food Safe?
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/05/is-your-food-safe/
Actos Litigation
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/ringler-radio/2012/05/actos-litigation/
Monday, July 9, 2012
Predictive Coding: A Rose by Any Other Name
The 2012 APPELLATE HOT LIST
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202559753115&rss=nlj
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Actos Litigation
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/ringler-radio/2012/05/actos-litigation/
What Bill Marler Did
Point: He must have made a bundle off the case, an obscene amount of money, so it was no big deal.So what? If he made a bundle, it's because he earned a bundle, and in this nation, you are allowed to eat what you catch. We are a capitalist society and we do not frown upon profit. In fact, it's no crime to take your profit and put it in your pocket, buy a Ferrari, or just lie naked in a bath tub filled with greenbacks. Welcome to America. But Bill chose not to do so.
Point: It's great advertising, and this will come back to him in spades.
So what? Should it turn out that others think well of Bill for what he's done, and that translates into more business and more money, is that somehow a reason to do otherwise? That our acts of kindness or good behavior or generosity happens to have the collateral benefit of making others appreciate us, it by no means diminishes the act itself.
And what did Bill Marler do that would give rise to such resentment? He did good, that's what. From Food Safety News:
When Nevada's Green Valley High School held its winter sports award banquet last week, Seattle-based food safety law firm Marler Clark was there to announce a donation of $100,000 to the Henderson-based school.The donation was made in honor of Green Valley's former teaching assistant, E. coli victim Linda Rivera, and her family.
Marler Clark managing partner Bill Marler, who represents Rivera, said the donation to the school will provide science scholarships and help fund the wrestling program and special education."I am extremely proud to be part of such an event and, even more so, honored to work with a family as courageous as the Riveras," said Marler. "Linda's battle with E. coli has certainly been one of the most devastating I've ever witnessed in my nearly 20 years of foodborne illness litigation and I know the Riveras are simply overjoyed to see something positive come from this experience."
There is no reason in the world that Bill and his firm couldn't have taken this $100 grand and plowed it into SEO, even a cool TV commercial with some unctuous actor looking doe-eyed into the camera and asking, "did your broccoli make you puke?" If this was about marketing and advertising, there would be no shortage of people claiming to be "professionals" who would have butchered the mother-tongue to prove how badly they wanted it.
But Bill chose instead to donate it to his client's school, the place where people cared about her, where her children were comforted and where a small community stood behind his client in her time of need. What a terrible thing to do, help a family, a school and a community. Such a Machiavellian ploy.
Outside the world of foodborne illness litigation and a small town in Nevada, few will know of Bill's donation. It's not like that Facebook kid threw pocket change at Newark, New Jersey. He's filthy rich. Bill Marler is just a working lawyer. You should know, however, about this.
Want to let your community know you exist? You could send a check to Bangalore for misspelled SEO juice, or some fast-talking snake oil salesman who will teach you how to become a twitter guru. If you really want to all in, get the full team, from graphic artist for your critically acclaimed logo which can then be plastered on informercials night after night. Is there a niche practice for the sleep-deprived?
Or you can use whatever money you would otherwise piss away on nonsense for the good of someone else. Fund a scholarship. Or a soup kitchen. There are no shortage of opportunities in every community to help. And if you happen to also get some gain for yourself out of it, whatever.
People have plenty of bad things to say about lawyers, most of them well-earned. Some may feel compelled to project their own evil thoughts onto Bill Marler. The point is that regardless of whether there was any thought of gain from an act of generosity in no way makes the gift of Marler Clark less beneficial to that school, to those children and to that community.
Think what you want. Bill Marler did good, and he deserves every bit of recognition he gets for this act of generosity. And if you're jealous of the kind words, do something good yourself.
H/T Kevin O'Keefe
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2012/07/08/what-bill-marler-did.aspx?ref=rss
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Improving the Quality of Care for Injured Workers
Managing Director of Best Doctors Occupational Health Institute. Michael talks about his view of workers’ compensation, how to make sure that injured workers are getting the best medical care possible and how he works with both insurers and injured workers through their attorneys to achieve best the quality of care.
How The Health Care Ruling Might Affect Civil Rights
Friday, July 6, 2012
Defense Attorneys Turning to Social Media
Taming e-Discovery
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/robert-half-legal-report/2011/11/taming-e-discovery/
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Judge Sets George Zimmerman's Bond At $1 Million
Source: http://www.npr.org/2012/07/05/156325911/judge-sets-george-zimmermans-bond-at-1-million?ft=1&f=1070
Why Dewey Died: Three Perspectives
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202559736339&rss=nlj
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
The 2012 APPELLATE HOT LIST
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202559753115&rss=nlj
Kid Put What In His Teacher's Coffee?
At any given time, most students dislike at least one of their teachers. That said, you can't just go around putting STAPLES in a disfavored teacher's coffee! As reported by WHSV (Virginia):
As of Tuesday, charges have been filed against a 15-year-old William Monroe High School student for allegedly putting staples in his teacher's ice coffee.In case you might be thinking the charge is a misdemeanor ...
At a court hearing Monday, the teen was charged with felony adulteration of food, drink, drugs, cosmetics, etc. with the intent to kill or injure any individual who ingests, inhales or uses such substance.And if you're wondering how the staples went down, surprisingly, the answer is: unnoticed.
The victim of the assault, a ninth grade English teacher, unknowingly drank the staple-spiked coffee May 10 but was not seriously injured.But that may not be the end of it for the teacher.
Maj. Randall Snead, with the Greene County Sheriff's Office, reports authorities are monitoring the teacher's condition since the damage caused by the staples may not be readily apparent.Here's the source.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/R2T1YfILRCE/post_436.html