The start of the 2014 World Cup in Brazil has brought renewed interest to the issue of corruption in international sports. Allegations recently resurfaced concerning potential bribery associated with Qatar’s successful bid for the rights to the 2022 World Cup.
'Halliburton II,' soon to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, has sparked speculation about the future of the "fraud on the market" presumption of reliance in private, civil federal securities fraud cases based on affirmative misrepresentations. Commentators have suggested that if the court dispatches that presumption, plaintiffs might fill the void by invoking the so-called Affiliated Ute presumption of reliance—a rebuttable presumption that arises in cases based on material omissions in breach of a duty to disclose.
NEW YORK CITY BAR ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE ON SECURITIES LITIGATION - The U.S. Supreme Court‟s November 15, 2013 decision granting certiorari in Halliburton Co. and David Lesar v. Erica P. John Fund has captured the imagination of the securities bar and economists alike. (contributing author)
In Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., the Supreme Court delivered a TKO to MGM when it decided, in a 6-3 decision on May 19, 2014, that the equitable defense of laches cannot be invoked as a defense to preclude claims brought within the Copyright Act's three-year statute of limitations for successive acts of copyright infringement. As a result, screenwriter Paula Petrella (Petrella) may continue to pursue more than $1 million in damages for MGM's continued distribution of the classic film Raging Bull. The decision likely sounds the death knell for laches as an affirmative defense in copyright infringement litigation and has the potential to expose Hollywood studios, music labels and media companies to an onslaught of cases brought by copyright holders' heirs and estates seeking a share of profits from classic films, TV shows, music recordings and other creative works that are re-released in various formats.
On March 3, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Omnicare Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, (13- 435) to resolve the question of whether, for purposes of a Section 11 claim, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to plead that a statement of opinion was untrue by only alleging that the opinion was objectively false, or if they also needed to allege that the statement was subjectively false (i.e., the speaker knew the opinion was false when made).