man-user-icon Client Login Portal
    • addthis
    • link : Client Login
    • knowledge network
    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Knowledge Network
    • Contact Us
    Labaton Sucharow
    • addthis
    • link : Client Login
    • knowledge network
    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Knowledge Network
    • Contact Us
    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Contact Us
    • Knowledge Network
    • Client Login
    • Search
    • addthis
    • link : Client Login
    • knowledge network
    Labaton Sucharow
    • News & Events
      • Press Room
      • Published
      • Events
    • Digital Library
      • Videos
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars
    • News & Events
      • Press Room
      • Published
      • Events
      • The Liaison
    • Digital Library
      • Videos
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars

    Justices’ Securities Docket Could Reflect Class Action Focus

    Bloomberg BNA Securities Law Daily
    July 19, 2017

    Serena P. Hallowell and Jordan A. Thomas remark on upcoming cases on SCOTUS docket

    In a recent Bloomberg BNA article discussing cases on the U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming docket, Firm partners Serena P. Hallowell and Jordan A. Thomas offered their perspectives on how the cases might proceed.

    Looking at the decision in CALPERS v. ANZ and the upcoming Cyan Inc. v. Beaver City Employee Retirement Fund, Serena P. Hallowell noted that the ANZ opinion is focused on textual analysis over policy and practical considerations, which will likely have consequences in terms of the number of opt-out suits that courts see early on after a class action is filed. If nothing else, the decision will require investors to consider their options early on to avoid risk of later relinquishment of certain claims. But ANZ's “plain language” textual mode of analysis can cut both ways, she told Bloomberg BNA, and just because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) provided for state law claims to be precluded in federal court, it doesn't mean lawmakers intended that Securities Act claims receive the same treatment. “If anything, an analysis of Congress’ silence says the opposite,” Hallowell, who brings securities fraud cases on behalf of institutional investors, said.

    Chair of the Firm’s Whistleblower Representation Practice, Jordan A. Thomas, remarked on Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, a decision requiring reporting to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that could “hurt all key stakeholders—whistleblowers, companies, and the SEC.” The U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Ninth and Second Circuits have said so-called reporting out isn't required, but the Fifth Circuit has held otherwise.

    First, he said, “[i]t would force sophisticated whistleblowers to report to the SEC first and bypass internal reporting. This hurts responsible organizations because they'll be deprived of the ability to address problems internally”; second, it would leave the commission “between a rock and a hard place,” because historically, the first line of defense has been robust compliance programs; and third, the SEC Whistleblower Program was designed to encourage internal reporting and provides an incentive to do so, Thomas said. “If there's no remedy for retaliation, it will send whistleblowers into harm's way."

    Useful Links

    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Knowledge Center

    Our Locations

    footer-list-map_icon New York
    140 Broadway
    New York, NY 10005
    212-907-0700

    footer-list-map_icon Delaware
    300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340
    Wilmington, DE 19801
    302-573-2540

    Useful Links

    footer-list-map_icon Washington, D.C.
    1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 500
    Washington, D.C. 20036
    202-772-1880

    Stay Connected

    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
    Labaton Sucharow
    • Attorney Advertising Disclaimer
    • Privacy Policy
    • labaton.com
    • Labaton Sucharow All Rights Reserved 2019

    Attorney Advertising Disclaimer

    The materials appearing on this website are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. You should not take action based upon this information without consulting legal counsel. This site is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon any single source of information, including advertising on this website. You may ask us to send you further information about us, and we urge you to review other sources of information about us.