DOCSLIB.ORG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of ILLINOIS in RE BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 1:19-C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of ILLINOIS in RE BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 1:19-C Case: 1:19-cv-07786 Document #: 66 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 1 of 51 PageID #:1934 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Case No. 1:19-cv-07786 IN RE BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC. District Judge Sara L. Ellis SECURITIES LITIGATION Magistrate Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings JOINT DECLARATION OF JAMES A. HARROD AND SHARAN NIRMUL IN SUPPORT OF (I) LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION AND (II) LEAD COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES Case: 1:19-cv-07786 Document #: 66 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 2 of 51 PageID #:1935 TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY OF TERMS .............................................................................................................. iii I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 II. PROSECUTION OF THE ACTION .................................................................................. 6 A. Background ................................................................................................................ 6 B. Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel.................................................... 8 C. Lead Plaintiffs’ Investigation and Preparation and Filing of the Complaint ............. 8 D. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, the Court’s MTD Order, and Lead Plaintiffs’ Preparation of a Second Amended Complaint .......................... 9 III. MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT ............................................................................... 12 IV. LEAD COUNSEL CONDUCT DISCOVERY ................................................................ 15 A. The Need for Due Diligence Discovery................................................................... 16 B. The Due Diligence Discovery Conducted by Lead Counsel ................................... 17 V. RISKS OF CONTINUED LITIGATION ......................................................................... 19 A. The Risks of Prosecuting Securities Actions in General ......................................... 20 B. The Court’s Dismissal of the Complaint ................................................................. 22 C. The Substantial Risks of Proving Defendants’ Liability and Damages in This Case ....................................................................................... 23 1. Risks of Proving Scienter .............................................................................. 24 2. Risks of Proving Loss Causation and Damages ............................................ 24 3. Risks of Proving Falsity and Materiality ....................................................... 25 4. Risks After Trial ............................................................................................ 26 i Case: 1:19-cv-07786 Document #: 66 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 3 of 51 PageID #:1936 VI. THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE IN LIGHT OF THE POTENTIAL RECOVERY IN THE ACTION ....................................................... 28 VII. ISSUANCE OF NOTICE OF THE SETTLEMENT TO THE SETTLEMENT CLASS AND THE REACTION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS TO DATE ........................... 29 VIII. PROPOSED ALLOCATION OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE SETTLEMENT ............. 32 IX. THE FEE AND LITIGATION EXPENSE APPLICATION ........................................... 35 A. The Fee Application ................................................................................................. 36 1. Lead Plaintiffs Have Authorized and Support the Fee Application ................. 36 2. The Time and Labor Devoted to the Action by Lead Counsel ........................ 37 3. The Experience and Standing of Lead Counsel ............................................... 39 4. The Standing and Caliber of Defendants’ Counsel .......................................... 39 5. The Risks of the Litigation and the Need to Ensure the Availability of Competent Counsel in High-Risk Contingent Securities Cases ..................... 39 6. The Reaction of the Settlement Class to the Fee Application .......................... 41 B. The Litigation Expense Application ........................................................................ 42 X. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 46 ii Case: 1:19-cv-07786 Document #: 66 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 4 of 51 PageID #:1937 GLOSSARY OF TERMS All capitalized terms used in this declaration and the accompanying memoranda of law that are not otherwise defined have the meanings set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April 1, 2021, previously filed with the Court (ECF No. 57-1). For the Court’s convenience, some of the most frequently used terms are set forth here. Almeida José Almeida, Baxter’s Chief Executive Officer Baxter or Baxter International Inc. the Company Class Period The period from February 21, 2019 through October 23, 2019, inclusive Complaint Lead Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (ECF No. 34), filed June 25, 2020 FX Foreign exchange Individual José Almeida and James Saccaro Defendants Lead Counsel Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Lead Plaintiffs Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs LAMPERS and Varma LAMPERS Lead Plaintiff Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System MTD Order The Court’s January 12, 2021 Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Saccaro James Saccaro, Baxter’s Chief Financial Officer Settlement Class All persons and entities who, during the Class Period, purchased or otherwise acquired Baxter common stock, and were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants, any person who was an executive officer or director of Baxter during the Class Period, their Immediate Family members, any affiliates of Baxter, and any persons or entities who or which exclude themselves by submitting a timely and valid request for exclusion that is accepted by the Court. Stipulation Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April 1, 2021 (ECF No. 57-1) iii Case: 1:19-cv-07786 Document #: 66 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 5 of 51 PageID #:1938 Varma Lead Plaintiff Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company iv Case: 1:19-cv-07786 Document #: 66 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 6 of 51 PageID #:1939 JAMES A. HARROD and SHARAN NIRMUL declare as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. I, James A. Harrod, am a member of the bars of the State of New York, the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits. I am a partner in the law firm of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (“BLB&G”), one of the Court-appointed Lead Counsel in the above-captioned action (the “Action”). BLB&G represents one of the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System (“LAMPERS”). 2. I, Sharan Nirmul, am a member of the bars of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Delaware, the U.S. District Courts of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Southern District of New York, District of New Jersey, and District of Delaware, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, and Seventh Circuits. I am a partner in the law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (“KTMC”), one of the Court-appointed Lead Counsel in the Action. KTMC represents one of the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company (“Varma”). LAMPERS and Varma are collectively referred to herein as “Lead Plaintiffs” and BLB&G and KTMC are collectively referred to as “Lead Counsel.” 3. We have personal knowledge of the matters stated in this declaration based on our active supervision of and participation in the prosecution and settlement of the Action. We respectfully submit this declaration in support of Lead Plaintiffs’ motion, under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for final approval of the proposed settlement of the Action with Defendant Baxter International Inc. (“Baxter” or the “Company”), and Defendants José E. Almeida and James K. Saccaro (the “Individual Defendants,” and together with Baxter, “Defendants”), for $16 million in cash (the “Settlement”). The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement in its Minute Order dated April 20, 2021, and set August 10, 2021 as the date for the Case: 1:19-cv-07786 Document #: 66 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 7 of 51 PageID #:1940 hearing on final approval of the Settlement. See ECF No. 58; see also ECF No. 59 (entering the Parties’ agreed-upon order preliminarily approving the Settlement). 4. We also respectfully submit this declaration in support of: (i) Lead Plaintiffs’ motion for approval of the proposed plan for allocating the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund to eligible Settlement Class Members (the “Plan of Allocation” or “Plan”) and (ii) Lead Counsel’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of 22% of the Settlement Fund; payment of litigation expenses incurred by Lead Counsel in the amount of $96,538.37; and payment of $6,648.75 in reimbursement for the costs of Lead Plaintiffs directly related to their representation of the Settlement Class (the “Fee and Expense Application”).1 5. The proposed Settlement provides for the resolution of all claims in the Action in exchange for a cash payment of $16 million for the benefit of the Settlement Class. This beneficial Settlement was achieved as a direct result of Lead Plaintiffs’ and Lead Counsel’s efforts to diligently investigate,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amicus Brief
    IN THE Superior Court of New Jersey NO. MER-L-1729-11 : GARDEN STATE EQUALITY; DANIEL WEISS and : MERCER COUNTY JOHN GRANT; MARSHA SHAPIRO and LOUISE : LAW DIVISION WALPIN; MAUREEN KILIAN and CINDY MENEGHIN; : SARAH KILIAN-MENEGHIN, a minor, by and through her : CIVIL ACTION guardians; ERICA and TEVONDA BRADSHAW; and : TEVERICO BARACK HAYES BRADSHAW, a minor, by : and through his guardians; MARCYE and KAREN : BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE IN NICHOLSON-McFADDEN; KASEY NICHOLSON- : SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ McFADDEN, a minor, by and through his guardians; MAYA : MOTION FOR SUMMARY NICHOLSON-McFADDEN, a minor, by and through her : JUDGMENT guardians; THOMAS DAVIDSON and KEITH HEIMANN; : AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES MARIE HEIMANN DAVIDSON, a minor, by and through : UNION OF NEW JERSEY her guardians; GRACE HEIMANN DAVIDSON, a minor, : by and through her guardians; ELENA and ELIZABETH : AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI- QUINONES; DESIREE NICOLE RIVERA, a minor, by : DISCRIMINATION and through her guardians; JUSTINE PAIGE LISA, a : COMMITTEE minor, by and through her guardians; PATRICK JAMES : ASIAN AMERICAN LEGAL ROYLANCE, a minor, by and through his guardians; ELI : DEFENSE AND QUINONES, a minor, by and through his guardians, : EDUCATION FUND Plaintiffs-Appellants, : GARDEN STATE BAR : ASSOCIATION v. : HISPANIC BAR PAULA DOW, in her official capacity as Attorney General of : : ASSOCIATION OF NEW New Jersey; JENNIFER VELEZ, in her official capacity as JERSEY Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human : Services, and MARY E. O'DOWD, in her official capacity as : LEGAL MOMENTUM Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Health and : NATIONAL ORGANIZATION Senior Services, : FOR WOMEN OF NEW : JERSEY Defendants-Respondents. : : RONALD K.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of Justice U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey 401 Market Street, Fourth Floor Camden, New Jersey 08101
    NEWS United States Department of Justice U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey 401 Market Street, Fourth Floor Camden, New Jersey 08101 Paul J. Fishman, U.S. Attorney More Information? Contact the Assistant U.S. Attorney or other contact listed below to see if more information is available. News on the Internet: News Releases, related documents and advisories are posted short-term at our website, along with links to our archived releases at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Go to: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/ Assistant U.S. Attorneys parry0319.rel KEVIN T. SMITH FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MATTHEW J. SKAHILL Mar. 19, 2010 SUSAN KASE 856-757-5026 Former Camden Police Officer Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Deprive Others of Their Civil Rights (More) Public Affairs Office 973-645-2888 Breaking News (NJ) http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/ CAMDEN – A former Camden, New Jersey police officer pled guilty today to his role in a conspiracy with other Camden Police officers to deprive others of their civil rights, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman announced. Kevin Parry, 29, admitted before U.S. District Judge Robert B. Kugler that from May 2007 until October 2009, while on duty as a uniformed police officer with the Camden Police Department, he engaged in a conspiracy with at least four other Camden Police officers to deprive persons in New Jersey of the free exercise and enjoyment of rights, privileges and immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. The other officers were not identified by name.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing a Comprehensive Prevention and Enforcement Framework 95
    92 Confronting the proceeds of crime in Southern Africa 93 References CHAPTER 5 Bond, P. 2006. Multinational capital’s responsibility for Africa’s resource extraction DEVELOPING A COMPREHENSIVE PREVENTION crisis. Open Space, 1(4), pp 12–21. AND ENFORCEMENT FRAMEWORK AGAINST Chinner, R. 2006. Plea-bargaining, guilty pleas and section 204 witnesses: A potential asset forfeiture nightmare. Legal Updater, 2. Pretoria: Asset Forfeiture MONEY LAUNDERING AND TERRORIST Unit. FINANCING IN NAMIBIA, 2004 TO 2006 ESAAMLG 2005. Strategic plan 2005–2008 [online]. Available from <www.esaamlg.org/documents_storage/STRATEGIC_PLAN_05.pdf> See also Ray Goba http://www.esaamlg.org/strategic_plan/index.php [cited 29 August 2006]. FATF 2005. Money laundering and terrorist financing typologies 2004–2005. Paris: Introduction Financial Action Task Force Secretariat. FIC 2006. Annual Report 2005–2006. Pretoria: Financial Intelligence Centre. This chapter attempts, firstly, to analyse the nature of money laundering Goredema, C. 2003. Money laundering in East and Southern Africa: An overview of activities observed during the period 2004 to 2006. Real cases are relied upon the threat. ISS paper 69. Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies. to highlight the predicate crimes that generate funds that are subsequently Levi, M. 2003. Criminal asset stripping: Confiscating the proceeds of crime in laundered, the manner in which such funds are laundered and the state’s England and Wales. In A. Edwards and P. Gill, eds, Transnational Organised initiatives to counter these activities. Crime: Perspectives on Global Security. London: Routledge, pp. 212–26. Secondly, the presentation of case studies helps to distinguish between entities Manuel, T. 2001. Speech to Parliament in October during the debate on the Financial Intelligence Centre Act.
    [Show full text]
  • VERINT SYSTEMS INC. (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the year ended January 31, 2008 Commission File Number 000-49790 VERINT SYSTEMS INC. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 11-3200514 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 330 South Service Road, Melville, New York 11747 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (631) 962-9600 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Name of each exchange Title of each class on which registered None None Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Common Stock, $.001 par value per share Title of class Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes No Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes No Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes No Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
    [Show full text]
  • Prosecutor Turf War Overshadows $150M Maxim Deal
    Portfolio Media. Inc. | 860 Broadway, 6th Floor | New York, NY 10003 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] Prosecutor Turf War Overshadows $150M Maxim Deal By Hilary Russ Law360, New York (September 14, 2011, 4:43 PM ET) -- Maxim Healthcare Services Inc.'s Monday settlement of billing fraud allegations may be remembered for something other than its $150 million price tag, after a rare public turf war erupted following accusations by federal prosecutors that state prosecutors had lied about their role in the case. “It is extraordinary,” said Daniel C. Richman, a professor at Columbia Law School. “The normal way a turf war plays out is through dueling leak programs. It is rare for an office to go on the record.” Maxim's settlement calls for the home health service provider to pay a $20 million criminal penalty and $130 million to settle a whistleblower suit accusing the company of engaging in a decadelong, nationwide billing scheme that allegedly defrauded Medicaid and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs programs. Of that amount, the federal government will get about $70 million and 42 states will split the remaining $60 million. But while divvying up the money isn't a problem, assigning credit appears to be a different story, with New Jersey Attorney General Paula Dow and U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Paul Fishman unleashing a war of words Monday few legal observers have ever seen. Despite a five-year federal criminal probe sparked by a 2004 qui tam suit, prosecutors had largely been able to keep the Maxim investigation and case under wraps.
    [Show full text]
  • National Association of Women Judges Counterbalance Spring 2012 Volume 31 Issue 3
    national association of women judges counterbalance Spring 2012 Volume 31 Issue 3 INSIDE THIS ISSUE Poverty’s Impact on the Administration of Justice / 1 President’s Message / 2 Executive Director’s Message / 3 Cambridge 2012 Midyear Meeting and Leadership Conference / 6 MEET ME IN MIAMI: NAWJ 2012 Annual Conference / 8 District News / 10 Immigration Programs News / 20 Membership Moments / 20 Women in Prison Report / 21 Louisiana Women in Prison / 21 Maryland Women in Prison / 23 NAWJ District 14 Director Judge Diana Becton and Contra Costa County native Christopher Darden with local high school youth New York Women in Prison / 24 participants in their November, 2011 Color of Justice program. Read more on their program in District 14 News. Learn about Color of Justice in creator Judge Brenda Loftin’s account on page 33. Educating the Courts and Others About Sexual Violence in Unexpected Areas / 28 NAWJ Judicial Selection Committee Supports Gender Equity in Selection of Judges / 29 POVERTY’S IMPACT ON THE ADMINISTRATION Newark Conference Perspective / 30 OF JUSTICE 1 Ten Years of the Color of Justice / 33 By the Honorable Anna Blackburne-Rigsby and Ashley Thomas Jeffrey Groton Remembered / 34 “The opposite of poverty is justice.”2 These words have stayed with me since I first heard them Program Spotlight: MentorJet / 35 during journalist Bill Moyers’ interview with civil rights attorney Bryan Stevenson. In observance News from the ABA: Addressing Language of the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination, they were discussing what Dr. Access / 38 King would think of the United States today in the fight against inequality and injustice.
    [Show full text]
  • (Pro Hac Vice) LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway
    Case 2:14-cv-00033-JNP-BCW Document 140 Filed 08/31/16 Page 1 of 48 Jonathan Gardner (pro hac vice) Christine M. Fox (pro hac vice) Guillaume Buell (pro hac vice) LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, New York 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Eric K. Jenkins (10783) CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN, P.C. 257 East 200 South, Suite 1100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 323-5000 Facsimile: (801) 355-3472 [email protected] Counsel for Lead Plaintiff State-Boston Retirement System and the Proposed Class IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION IN RE NU SKIN ENTERPRISES, INC., Master File No. 2:14-cv-00033-JNP-BCW SECURITIES LITIGATION Hon. Jill Parrish DECLARATION OF JONATHAN This Document Related To: GARDNER IN SUPPORT OF LEAD ALL ACTIONS PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION AND LEAD COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND PAYMENT OF EXPENSES Case 2:14-cv-00033-JNP-BCW Document 140 Filed 08/31/16 Page 2 of 48 I, JONATHAN GARDNER, declare as follows pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746: 1. I am a member of Labaton Sucharow LLP (“Labaton Sucharow” or “Lead Counsel”), counsel for Lead Plaintiff State-Boston Retirement System (“Lead Plaintiff” or “State Boston”) and the Settlement Class.1 I have been actively involved in prosecuting and resolving this action, am familiar with its proceedings, and have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein based upon my supervision and participation in all material aspects of the action.
    [Show full text]
  • A Road Map to Academic Success
    SPOTLIGHT: YEAR IN REVIEW Suite Escape A look back at the top business Find out which news a ecting New Jersey N.J. executive’s throughout 2011. all-time favorite gift . Page 15 was a pair of silk ® stockings. Page 10 DECEMBER 19, 2011 www.njbiz.com $2.00 A. Gabriel Esteban was inaugurated as the 20th INSIDE Christina Mazza president of Seton Hall University, in October. Boost to development EDA approves tax credits for Jersey City, Long Branch projects. .Page 2 Charitable giving Foundations strive to keep pace with growing needs of the state’s nonpro ts. Page 5 Fueling city growth Bills aim to provide funding to UEZs, but with limits. .Page 5 A road map to academic success New Seton Hall president prioritizes future planning Esteban was inaugurated as of the school’s board of regents, the 156-year-old Catholic univer- said Esteban’s quiet confi dence BY JARED KALTWASSER help but think of ways to im- sity’s 20th president in October. and focused leadership style as Made in USA A. GABRIEL ESTEBAN always prove future ceremonies. He came to the school as provost provost was impressive. Family-owned manufacturer expands aims for the top grade. Even re- “That’s the thing,” he said. in 2007 before being named in- “During that time he began by being true to its roots. Page 10 counting Seton Hall University’s “I start to think ahead. As you’re terim president in July 2010, to put in place some of the key as- Opinion second-annual tree-lighting cer- waiting to get on with the show, upon the retirement of Monsi- pects of improving the academic ■ Editorial: Legislature must reduce emony earlier this month, the you start to think about, ‘How can gnor Robert Sheeran.
    [Show full text]
  • A Primer on Shareholder Litigation
    Attorneys at Law A PRIMER ON SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION Securities Class Actions, Non-U.S. Jurisdiction Actions, Shareholder Derivative Actions, Mergers & Acquisitions Litigation, Appraisal Actions, and Direct Actions (Opting-Out) www.ktmc.com Disclaimer: This article is intended to provide a thorough background on various forms of shareholder litigation. However, it is not intended as a substitute for legal advice with your chosen counsel and discussions as to the merits of each particular action you may consider. • All citations are omitted, but available upon request. • All financial figures are in U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated. Revised February 2017 A Primer on Shareholder Litigation Securities Class Actions, Non-U.S. Jurisdiction Actions, Shareholder Derivative Actions, Mergers & Acquisitions Litigation, Appraisal Actions, and Direct Actions (Opting-Out) Table of Contents Page I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 II. Overview of the United States Federal Securities Laws ................................................. 1 A. The Securities Act ............................................................................................................................. 1 B. The Exchange Act ............................................................................................................................. 2 C. Private Remedies Under Federal Law .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Outline of Recent SEC Enforcement Actions
    Outline of Recent SEC Enforcement Actions Submitted by: 1 Joan McKown Chief Counsel Prepared by: 2 Division of Enforcement U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, D.C. 1 The Securities and Exchange Commission, as a matter of policy, disclaims responsibility for any private publication or statement by any of its employees. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission or its staff. 2 Parts of this outline have been used in other publications. Table of Contents CASES INVOLVING FINANCIAL FRAUD & OTHER DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING VIOLATIONS...................................................................................................................2 SEC v. Jacob Alexander, David Kreinberg, and William F. Sorin ...................................................................... 2 SEC v. MBIA Inc........................................................................................................................................................... 3 In the Matter of City of San Diego, California ......................................................................................................... 3 SEC v. Viper Capital Management, LLC, et al. ....................................................................................................... 4 SEC v. Michael Moran, James Sievers, Martin Zaepfel, James Cannataro, John Steele, Michael Crusemann and Michael Otto ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Stock Option Backdating: the Scandal, the Misconception & the Legal Consequences
    Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development Volume 23 Issue 1 Volume 23, Spring 2008, Issue 1 Article 7 March 2008 Stock Option Backdating: The Scandal, the Misconception & the Legal Consequences Jodell R. Nowicki Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred Recommended Citation Nowicki, Jodell R. (2008) "Stock Option Backdating: The Scandal, the Misconception & the Legal Consequences," Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development: Vol. 23 : Iss. 1 , Article 7. Available at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred/vol23/iss1/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STOCK OPTION BACKDATING: THE SCANDAL, THE MISCONCEPTION & THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES JODELL R. NOwIcKI* With the barrage of recent corporate scandals, including the well-publicized fall of Enron,' a recent closer scrutiny of corpo- rate executive practices has brought to light additional corporate malfeasance in the form of stock option backdating. 2 This paper will familiarize and clarify which corporate practices regarding backdating are legal versus those that are illegal, thereby sub- jecting companies and individuals to violations of state and fed- eral law. I. WHAT IS A STOCK OPTION AND How CAN IT BE BACKDATED TO CREATE AN ADVANTAGE? A stock option gives the recipient of the grant the right to buy a company's stock at a certain exercise or "strike" price.
    [Show full text]
  • Comverse Motion to Dismiss January 10, 2007
    SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) MEMORANDUM OF LAW ) IN SUPPORT OF ) COMVERSE IN RE COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY, INC. ) TECHNOLOGY, INC.’S DERIVATIVE LITIGATION ) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR ) FAILURE TO MAKE A ) DEMAND ) ) Index No. 601272/2006 ) ) Justice Richard B. Lowe, III ) IAS Part 56 ) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 1825 Eye Street NW Washington, DC 20006-5403 T: (202) 420-2200 F: (202) 420-2201 Counsel for Nominal Defendant Comverse Technology, Inc. DSMDB-2170150v11 Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. i Table of Authorities. ....................................................................................................................... ii Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 Factual Background. ....................................................................................................................... 2 Argument. ....................................................................................................................................... 6 I. THE BOARD’S AND SPECIAL COMMITTEE’S ACTIONS OVERWHELMINGLY DEMONSTRATE THEIR ABILITY TO CONSIDER IMPARTIALLY A PRE-SUIT DEMAND....................................................................................................................................... 7 II. DERIVATIVE PLAINTIFFS’ ASSERTED GROUNDS FOR DEMAND FUTILITY
    [Show full text]