Jacob Taber Counsel

In a significant decision on securities class actions, the Supreme Court last week held that the generic nature of alleged misrepresentations will often be “important evidence of a lack of price impact” that can be used by defendants to defeat class certification

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument on March 29 on a critical question for securities class action defendants: On a class certification motion, what evidence must a defendant put forward to show that the alleged misrepresentations had no impact on the defendant’s stock price, thus rebutting the Basic presumption of class-wide reliance?

In the financial industry, as in others, employees often enter into employment agreements that require them to give early notice of their intent to terminate their employment (often three to six months prior to leaving the job), followed by an agreement to comply with a covenant not to compete against their former employer for a period of time following termination of their employment.

As every securities lawyer knows, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 makes it unlawful to, among other things, “make” a materially false statement in connection with a securities transaction.