Website Heading

CALIFORNIA CORPORATE & SECURITIES LAW

District Court Rules Plaintiff Failed To Plead Real Estate Investment Was A “Security”

Both the Securities Act of 1933 and the California Corporate Securities Law of 1968 provide similar, but not the same, definitions of a “security”.  See Making A List Of Securities And Checking It Twice.  Although these lists are expansive, courts continue to explain why some items on the lists are not securities and why some…

Share on:

Court Rules Indirect Purchaser Claims Against Theranos May Proceed

Theranos’ anni horrorum began in October 2015 with the publication of a story by investigative reporter John Carreyrou at The Wall Street Journal.  Lawsuits and government investigations ensued.  Although the Theranos recently announced agreements with the Arizona Attorney General and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins last week dealt a setback to the…

Share on:

Did Joseph P. Kennedy Make Insider Trading Illegal?

The Patriarch: The Remarkable Life and Turbulent Times of Joseph P. Kennedy. (Penguin Press, 2012) by Professor David Nasaw is one of several books that I am currently reading.  As a securities lawyer, the following sentence gave me pause: “Trading on insider information was not illegal – and would not become illegal until [Joseph P.] Kennedy, as…

Share on:

Silver Hills Doesn’t Mute Howey

Anyone who has studied securities regulation since 1946 should be familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of a “security” as enunciated by Justice Frank Murphy in S.E.C. v. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946).  That test asks “whether the scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the…

Share on:

What Do You Know? Bill Proposes To Eliminate Scienter

Corporations Code Section 25401 is California’s basic securities antifraud statute: It is unlawful for any person to offer or sell a security in this state, or to buy or offer to buy a security in this state, by means of any written or oral communication that includes an untrue statement of a material fact or…

Share on:

Why The SEC Isn’t Vegas

Last week, I wrote that the Securities and Exchange Commission is sending letters to registrants requesting information about compliance with Regulation G and Item 10(e) of Regulation S-K.  These letters request issuers to voluntarily provide information concerning their disclosures of non-GAAP financial measures.  I cautioned that registrants should read the accompanying SEC Form 1662 carefully before…

Share on:

Ninth Circuit Holds Attorney’s Statement Was “Made”, Not Attributed

Readers familiar with the Nicene Creed will instantly recognize the phrase “begotten, not made”.  I won’t wade into the theological meaning of this phrase, but I cite it as an example of the importance that can be attached to the seemingly simple concept of making.  Under Rule 10b-5, it is unlawful for “any person, directly or indirectly, .…

Share on:

Class A Is Class A and Class B Is Class B And Shall Ever The Twain Meet?

In addition to directors and officers, Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 applies to every person who is “directly or indirectly the beneficial owner of more than 10 percent of any class of any equity security (other than an exempted security) which is registered pursuant to Section 12” of the Act.  This,…

Share on:

Is Certiorari A Possibility For SLUSA Question Not Addressed By Any Federal Circuit Court?

In Luther v. Countrywide Financial Corp., 195 Cal. App. 4th 789 (2011), the trial court ruled that state courts do not enjoy concurrent jurisdiction when a class action meeting the definition of a “covered class action” under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (aka “SLUSA”) did not involve a “covered security”, as also…

Share on:

Do State Courts Lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Covered Class Actions That Allege Only ’33 Act Claims?

In Luther v. Countrywide Financial Corp., 195 Cal. App. 4th 789 (2011), the trial court ruled that state courts do not enjoy concurrent jurisdiction when a class action meeting the definition of a “covered class action” under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (aka “SLUSA”) did not involve a “covered security” as also defined by SLUSA…

Share on: