In an opinion issued yesterday, Judge Crotty denied Goldman Sachs’ motion for reconsideration of his refusal to dismiss securities fraud claims that Goldman argued were inactionable “puffery.” See our post on that decision here. Goldman had pointed to three subsequent Second Circuit opinions — in City of Pontiac Policemen’s & Firemen’s Ret. Sys. v. UBS AG, Carpenters Pension Trust Fund of St. Louis v. Barclays PLC, and Boca Raton Firefighters & Police Pension Fund v. Bahash — that it argued had changed or clarified controlling law on puffery. Judge Crotty disagreed:
Continue Reading Judge Crotty: Three New Second Circuit Opinions on “Puffery” Do Not Merit Reconsideration in Goldman Case
Reconsideration
Judge Baer Reinstates MBS Claims After Second Ciruit’s NECA Decision
By Matthew Popowsky on
Citing the Second Circuit’s recent decision in NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 693 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2012), Judge Baer yesterday granted plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration in two cases based on allegedly fraudulent statements in connection with the sale of mortgage backed securities. The order reinstated claims he had previously dismissed because they related to securities that the named plaintiffs had not actually purchased. In the prior orders, Judge Baer had granted the motion of Royal Bank of Scotland, Citigroup, UBS and others on Article III standing grounds. Judge Baer explained the reason for his decision to grant the motion for reconsideration:
Continue Reading Judge Baer Reinstates MBS Claims After Second Ciruit’s NECA Decision
Judge Forrest “Leaves No Doubt” that Government Is Enjoined from Enforcing Indefinite Detention Law Against Anyone
By Matthew Popowsky on
As we reported last month, the government moved Judge Forrest to reconsider her order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of a federal law authorizing the government to detain U.S. citizens who provide “substantial support” for Al-Qaeda, the Taliban or their “associated forces.” In a footnote to its motion for reconsideration, the government stated its view as to the scope of the injunction — it applied only to the specific plaintiffs in the case, and did not enjoin enforcement of the law generally. At a telephonic hearing on June 1, Judge Forrest indicated that she did not agree with the government’s reading of the order, and today she issued a written order so as to “leave no doubt as to that issue.” Contrary to the government’s contention, Judge Forrest held that, because the plaintiffs’ challenge was to a law that was facially vague and violated their constitutional rights, the government is enjoined from enforcing the law against anyone.
Continue Reading Judge Forrest “Leaves No Doubt” that Government Is Enjoined from Enforcing Indefinite Detention Law Against Anyone