1,000,000 + Attorneys and Legal Staff - Legal employers hire more people on LawCrossing than any other site.
Bank of America to Pay $17 Billion for Its Role in Housing Bubble Burst
Bank of America to Pay $17 Billion for Its Role in Housing Bubble Burs...
Florida Law Firm Threatened by Getty Images for Copyright Infringement
Florida Law Firm Threatened by Getty Images for Copyright Infringement
$62.5 Million Settlement Approved in Case Against Wells Fargo
$62.5 Million Settlement Approved in Case Against Wells Fargo
Rosen Law Firm PA Investigating Possible Fraud on Part of SeaWorld
Rosen Law Firm PA Investigating Possible Fraud on Part of SeaWorld
Job Listings

U.S. Supreme Court Says Investors Can Sue Law Firms Connected with Stanford Ponzi Scheme under State Laws

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

In Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice et al., the U.S. Supreme Court has held that investors in Stanford’s Ponzi scheme are not barred by the SLUSA from suing Chadbourne & Parke and Proskeur Rose, as the investors did not purchase covered securities, but purchased uncovered securities.

In the instant case, investors had initially brought four class actions under state law against the two law firms alleging they had negligently employed lawyer Thomas Sjoblom, who helped delay a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into Stanford’s conduct. Further, the plaintiffs alleged the defendants had helped Allen Stanford and his companies perpetrate the Ponzi scheme by falsely representing that uncovered securities the plaintiffs were purchasing were backed by covered securities.

The District court dismissed each civil class action under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (Litigation Act) holding that there was sufficient reason to bar the suits under provisions that forbid large securities class actions “based upon the statutory or common law of any State” in which the plaintiffs allege “a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase of sale of a covered security.”

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision holding the falsehoods involved in the matter were too tangentially related to the fraud to trigger the Litigation Act.

What

 job title, keywords

Where

 city, state, zip



Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!


On further appeal, this week, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the “Litigation Act does not preclude the plaintiff’s state-law class actions.”

In its opinion, the court observed, “The basic purpose of the 1934 and 1933 regulatory statutes is to protect investor confidence in the securities markets. Nothing in those statutes, or in the Litigation Act, suggests their object is to protect persons whose connection with the statutorily defined securities is more remote than buying or selling.”

The Supreme Court also refused to accept the law firms were protected even though their connection to the sales and purchases of the securities were remote observing, “a broader interpretation of the necessary statutory ‘connection’ would interfere with state efforts to provide remedies for victims of of ordinary state-law frauds, despite the fact that the Litigation Act purposefully seeks to avoid such results by maintaining State’s legal authority over matters that are primarily of state concern.”

U.S. Supreme Court Says Investors Can Sue Law Firms Connected with Stanford Ponzi Scheme under State Laws by

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Tagged: , , , , ,

Posted by on February 27, 2014. Filed under Business News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

 

 

Job of the Day
Real Estate Associate
USA-TX-Dallas

Our client is a north Dallas law firm who seeks a Real Estate Development Associate.  The ideal candidate will have 2-4 years law firm experience concentrated in representing real estate develope...