Website Heading

CALIFORNIA CORPORATE & SECURITIES LAW

California Securities Law Claims Founder On Personal Jurisdiction

Establishing personal jurisdiction may seem mundane, but without it a plaintiff may soon find itself out of court, as did the plaintiff in Marshall v. Galvanoni, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185530. In Marshall, the plaintiff sued a half dozen companies and four individuals over failed investments.  Among other things, the plaintiff alleged violations of California…

Share on:

Does The SEC Have Exposure For Tipping Inside Information?

Yesterday, I discussed the recent hack of the Securities and Exchange Systems’ electronic filing and retrieval system commonly referred to as EDGAR.  In a written statement disclosing the hack, Chairman Jay Clayton speculated that the incident may have provided a basis for “illicit gain through trading”.  Professor Peter Henning and others have observed that the…

Share on:

Scienter In The News Again

In May, I wrote about Judge Gonzolo P. Curiel’s  decision to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss federal and state securities law claims in Mueller v. San Diego Entm’t Partners, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77643 (S.D. Cal. May 22, 2017).  I pointed out that Judge Curiel had ruled that scienter is required under Corporations Code Section 25401 but…

Share on:

Scienter Requirement May Be A Question Of Timing

On several occasions, I have written about whether scienter is required under Corporations Code Section 25401.  That question surfaced again last week in Judge Gonzolo P. Curiel’s ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss federal and state securities law claims in Mueller v. San Diego Entm’t Partners, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77643 (S.D. Cal.…

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:

Bill Aims To Negate Scienter

You can thank the Romans for science and the English for knowledge The etymon of “scienter” is sciens which is the present participle form of the Latin verb meaning to know (scire).  The English word “know” is derived from the Old English verb, cnāwan, the present participle of which is cnāwende.  The roots of cnāwan can be traced back to…

Share on:

California Reverts To Former Securities Anti-Fraud Statute

Readers of this blog will recall my chariness of a 2013 amendment to California’s basic securities anti-fraud statute.  See California Creates Complete Chaos By Rewriting Anti-Fraud Statute, But “We Are Against Fraud Aren’t We?”  Although I identified a host of issues, my fundamental concern was that by rewriting California Corporations Code Section 25401, the legislature…

Share on:

Ninth Circuit Requires Particularity In All Elements Of Securities Fraud Pleading

Sometimes, I find it useful to take a step back and review the legal standard applicable to securities fraud claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.  To stay in court, and securities litigation all about surviving motions to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege all of the following: A material misrepresentation or omission; Scienter; A connection…

Share on:

The Securities Fraud Device That The Legislature Devised To Omit

Last year, Senator Jerry Hill authored a bill, SB 538, which rewrote Corporations Code Section 25401.  As I posted, the underlying premise was fanciful at best – that California’s statute “has failed to keep up with similar language in federal anti-fraud statutes”.   By metamorphosing Section 25401 from a statute based on Section 12(a)(2) of…

Share on:

Die Verwandlung: How The Legislature Likely Raised The Bar On Securities Fraud Actions

With the availability of a private cause of action under SEC Rule 10b-5, is there any reason to include a cause of action under California Corporations Code Sections 25401 and 25501?  Until the most recent legislative session, there were significant differences between the federal rule and the California’s securities laws. California’s scheme has not required…

Share on: