Continue Reading Judge Rakoff: Call Me With Your Motions “Well Into the Evening”
Parties Cross-Move for Summary Judgment Concerning Bank of America-Merrill Merger Disclosure Claims
A securities class action before Judge Castel accuses Bank of America, Merrill Lynch and certain officers and directors of securities fraud and related violations for failing to disclose, before the shareholder vote to approve the Bank of America-Merrill merger, that Merrill was expecting enormous losses for the fourth quarter of 2008 and that Bank of America and Merrill had agreed to set aside up to $5.8 billion for Merrill bonuses. The parties today cross-moved for summary judgment. The class plaintiffs (represented by Bernstein Litowitz) moved for partial summary judgment to establish that the pre-merger disclosures about the effect of the deal on earnings were both false and material:
Continue Reading Parties Cross-Move for Summary Judgment Concerning Bank of America-Merrill Merger Disclosure Claims
Defendants Move to Dismiss “Magnetar” Suit Relating to CDO Allegedly Designed to Fail
As we blogged about before, an Italian bank that provided $180 million in credit protection on a CDO called “Pyxis” sued U.S. hedge fund Magnetar and others for allegedly conspiring to secretly place risky assets into Pyxis so that Magnetar could bet against the CDO and profit from its collapse. This evening, two [UPDATE: three] of the defendants moved to dismiss. The CDO arranger, Credit Agricole, moved to dismiss because (among other reasons) the core allegation was based on speculation from news accounts relating to other deals:
Continue Reading Defendants Move to Dismiss “Magnetar” Suit Relating to CDO Allegedly Designed to Fail
Judge Cedarbaum Dismisses Class Action Against Goldman Because Bonds At Issue Have Never Missed a Payment
In Upholding SEC Enforcement Verdict, Judge Swain Concludes Expert Testimony on Standard of Care Was Unnecessary
Government Moves Judge Forrest to Reconsider Injunction Against Detention Authority
This evening, the government moved to reconsider Judge Forrest’s order preliminarily enjoining the government from enforcing a federal law authorizing the government to detain persons, including U.S. citizens, who “substantial[ly] support” Al-Qaeda, the Taliban or their “associated forces.” As summarized in a prior post, Judge Forrest’s ruling was heavily influenced by the fact that the government would not agree at the injunction hearing that the conduct of the plaintiffs, a group of journalists and civic activists, would fall outside the law. The government’s motion’s first explains that, as a general matter, the conduct the plaintiffs described in their affidavits would not subject them to detention:
To eliminate any doubt, the government wants to be as clear as possible . . . . As a matter of law, individuals who engage in the independent journalistic activities or independent public advocacy described in plaintiffs’ affidavits and testimony, without more, are not subject to law of war detention as affirmed by section 1021(a)-(c), solely on the basis of such independent journalistic activities or independent public advocacy.
But the government states that it should not be required to give more specific assurances than that:
Continue Reading Government Moves Judge Forrest to Reconsider Injunction Against Detention Authority