In This Issue:

CLASS CERTIFICATION:

Fort Worth Emps. Ret. Fund v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 09-cv-3701 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2014)

Discovery:

..Freedman v. Weatherford Int’l Ltd., No. 12 Civ. 2121 (LAK) (JCF) (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2014)

EXCHANGE ACT:

..Brado v. Vocera Commc’ns, Inc., No. C-13-3567-EMC (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2014)

..Petrie v. Electronic Game Card, Inc., No. 12-55620 (9th Cir. July 30, 2014)

..U.S. v. McGee, No. 13-3183 (3d Cir. Aug. 14, 2014)

..Reinschmidt v. Zillow, Inc., et. al, No. C12-2084 RSM (W.D. Wash. Oct. 20, 2014)

FIDUCIARY DUTIES:

Books and Records:

..Wolst v. Monster Beverage Corp., C.A. No. 9154-VCN, 2014 WL 4966139, opinion (Del. Ch. Oct. 3, 2014)

Bylaws:

..City of Providence v. First Citizens BancShares, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9795-CB (consol.), opinion (Del. Ch. Sept. 8, 2014)

..Mergers and Acquisitions:

..In re KKR Fin. Holdings LLC S’holder Litig., C.A. No. 9210-CB, 2014 WL 5151285 (consol.), opinion (Del. Ch. Oct. 14, 2014)

INTERPRETING JANUS:

..Town N. Bank, N.A. v. Shay Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 3:11-CV-3125-L, 2014 WL 4851558 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2014)

Investment Company Act:

..Laborers’ Local 265 Pension Fund v. iShares Trust, No. 13-6486 (6th Cir. Sept. 30, 2014)

LOSS CAUSATION:

..Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. of Mississippi, Puerto Rico Teachers Ret. Sys. v. Amedisys, Inc., No. 13-30580, 2014 WL 4931411 (5th Cir. Oct. 2, 2014)

PSLRA:

Lead Plaintiff:

..Sklar v. Amarin Corp. PLC, No. 13-cv-06663 (FLW) (TJB) (D.N.J. July 29, 2014)

Scienter:

..In re Omnicare, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 13-5597 (6th Cir. Oct. 10, 2014)

Reliance:

..Salvani v. ADVFN PLC, No. 13 Civ. 7082 (ER) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2014)

SCIENTER:

..Weinstein v. McClendon, No. 13-6121 (10th Cir. July 8, 2014)

SECURITIES ACT CLAIMS:

..MHC Mut. Conversion Fund, L.P. v. Sandler O’Neill & Partners, L.P., No. 13-1016 (10th Cir. Aug. 1, 2014)

..Firefighters Pension & Relief Fund of the City of New Orleans v. Bulmahn, CIV.A. 13-3935, 2014 WL 5040696 (E.D. La. Sept. 26, 2014)

SLUSA:

..Goodman v. AssetMark, Inc., No. 09-CV-5603 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2014)

SLUSA Preclusion:

..Campbell v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., 760 F.3d 62 (D.C. Cir. 2014)

Standing:

..Cartica Mgmt., LLC v. Corpbanca, S.A., No. 14-cv-2258 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2014)

Statutes of limitations:

..Schmidt v. Skolas, et. al, No. 4:12-cv-00603-JEG, No. 13-3750 (3d Cir. Oct. 17, 2014)

Statutes of Repose:

..Bensinger v. Denbury Resources Inc., No. 10-cv-1917 (E.D.N.Y. July 14, 2014)

..Kaplan v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, L.P., Nos. 12-cv-9350 (VM), 13-cv-2459 (VM) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2014)

..Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Chase Mortg. Fin. Corp., No. 12 Civ. 6166 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014)

..Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc. v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin. Bd., Nos. 12-3295 & 3298 (10th Cir. Aug. 19, 2014)

Excerpt from CLASS CERTIFICATION:

SDNY Certifies Class of Shareholders in Securities Action Against Investment Bank Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York certified a class of shareholders in a securities action that alleged that an investment bank violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making misleading statements in a registration statement and prospectus concerning the sale of certain mortgage-backed securities. First, the court denied the defendants’ motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ expert on class certification and found that the plaintiffs’ expert’s opinion regarding the common effects of defendants’ alleged false statements and the method to calculate damages was reliable. Second, the court held that the plaintiffs’ Section 11 liability claim could be maintained on a class-wide basis because there was substantial factual and legal overlap between the security offerings, the alleged false statements made in the security offering documents, and the entities and mortgage originators involved in the transactions. The court further determined that whether plaintiffs received notice of the alleged fraud by way of certain publicly available news articles, and thus were barred from asserting claims by the applicable one-year statute of limitations, could also be determined on a class-wide basis. The court could not determine, however, that damages could be calculated on a class-wide basis, as required by the Supreme Court’s decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), because the plaintiffs’ expert on damages merely stated that such calculations were possible but did not state with precision the methodology that he would use to value the complex mortgage-backed securities at issue. The court therefore certified the class for liability purposes only and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification as to damages without prejudice.