Warning: Declaration of subscribe2_widget::addPluginSubMenu() should be compatible with mijnpress_plugin_framework::addPluginSubMenu($title, $function, $file, $capability = 10, $where = 'plugins.ph...') in /nfs/c05/h05/mnt/158446/domains/shbclassactions.com/html/wp-content/plugins/subscribe2-widget/subscribe2-widget.php on line 18

Warning: Declaration of subscribe2_widget::addPluginContent($links, $file) should be compatible with mijnpress_plugin_framework::addPluginContent($filename, $links, $file, $config_url = NULL) in /nfs/c05/h05/mnt/158446/domains/shbclassactions.com/html/wp-content/plugins/subscribe2-widget/subscribe2-widget.php on line 18

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /nfs/c05/h05/mnt/158446/domains/shbclassactions.com/html/wp-content/themes/smartblog/framework/admin/inc/extensions/customizer/extension_customizer.php on line 376

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /nfs/c05/h05/mnt/158446/domains/shbclassactions.com/html/wp-content/themes/smartblog/framework/admin/inc/extensions/customizer/extension_customizer.php on line 398

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /nfs/c05/h05/mnt/158446/domains/shbclassactions.com/html/wp-content/themes/smartblog/framework/admin/inc/extensions/customizer/extension_customizer.php on line 416

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /nfs/c05/h05/mnt/158446/domains/shbclassactions.com/html/wp-content/themes/smartblog/framework/admin/inc/extensions/customizer/extension_customizer.php on line 420

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /nfs/c05/h05/mnt/158446/domains/shbclassactions.com/html/wp-content/themes/smartblog/framework/admin/inc/extensions/customizer/extension_customizer.php on line 447

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /nfs/c05/h05/mnt/158446/domains/shbclassactions.com/html/wp-content/themes/smartblog/framework/admin/inc/extensions/customizer/extension_customizer.php on line 459

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /nfs/c05/h05/mnt/158446/domains/shbclassactions.com/html/wp-content/themes/smartblog/framework/admin/inc/extensions/customizer/extension_customizer.php on line 478

Warning: session_start(): Cannot start session when headers already sent in /nfs/c05/h05/mnt/158446/domains/shbclassactions.com/html/wp-content/plugins/multiple-category-selection-widget/mcsw.php on line 21
Securities | Missouri & Kansas Class Action Law

Category Archives Securities

Here's an interesting order from the District of Kansas that was published right before the Thanksgiving holiday that demonstrates how a proposed class settlement can get denied not once, but twice, if counsel does not adequately represent all members of the putative absent class. In Better v. YRC Worldwide, No. 11-2072-KHV, 2013 WL 6060952 (D. Kan. Nov. 18, 2013), the parties were before the court for a second time for preliminary approval of a securities class action settlement. While the court initially denied approval because plaintiffs failed to satisfy the Rule 23 requirements of typicality and adequacy, it appears the parties did not sufficiently address these deficiencies the second time around. Specifically, the court identified three areas where the parties failed to protect the interests of the putative class: First, approval was denied because the Court found that the proposed settlement failed to provide any benefit to certain class members while requiring…

The United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, 2013 WL 691001 (U.S., Feb. 27, 2013), presents a fascinating theoretical dilemma, but one with limited application beyond securities law.  Justice Scalia’s assertion in his dissent that Justice Ginsberg’s majority opinion expands the consequences of the Basic decision from “regrettable” to “arguably disastrous” may be an overstatement beyond the context of securities law.  The issue in this case was whether the proponent of certifying a securities class action under § 10(b) of the SEC Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 is required to prove the element of materiality at the class certification stage.  The majority held that it did not, because materiality, while an element of the fraud on the market theory applicable to securities claims, was a merits issue.  This is of course not surprising, as courts have long been warned away…

Close