Several of the leading Minnesota and Eighth Circuit cases dealing with securities law and regulation have been litigated by Moss & Barnett’s litigation attorneys. They have handled securities fraud claims – for defendants and plaintiffs, including class actions – as well as regulatory, broker dealer and registered representative arbitrations.
When complex securities laws and financial matters are involved, the Moss & Barnett securities litigators draw upon their collective experience and knowledge to get to the heart of the dispute and press for successful resolution.
[01/20] Huppe v. WPCS International Inc. In a shareholder derivative action seeking disgorgement of short-swing profits realized by two limited partnerships that were beneficial owners of more than 10 percent of the shares of the issuer, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed, where: 1) the stock purchases were not exempt from Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or SEC Rule 16b-3(d) even though they were made at the issuer's request and with the board’s approval; and 2) under the definition of "person" in Section 16(b) and basic principles of agency law, the limited partnerships were beneficial owners for the purposes of determining ten percent holder status under Section 16(b), notwithstanding their delegation of voting and investment control over their securities portfolios to their general partners' agents.
[01/10] Capital Management Select Fund Ltd. v. Bennett In a securities fraud action stemming from a broker's rehypothecation or other use of securities and other property held in customer brokerage accounts, the district court's dismissal of all claims is affirmed, where the plaintiffs failed to make sufficient allegations that their agreements with the broker misled them or that the broker did not intend to comply with those agreements at the time of contracting.
[01/09] US v. Collins Judgment of conviction for conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud is vacated, where: 1) the district court failed to disclose the contents of a jury note and engaged in an ex parte colloquy with a juror accused of attempting to barter his vote, thus depriving the defendant of his right to be present at each stage of the trial; and 2) the errors were not harmless, as the court could not say with fair assurance that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the errors.
