HOT DOCS

In re Adelphia Commc’ns Corp. Sec. and Deriv. Litig. (S.D.N.Y.)

ORDER – Plaintiff’s claim against Latham & Watkins is for violation of section 11 of the Securities Act. Plaintiff argues that Latham is a “person whose profession gives authority to a statement made by him” under 15 U.S.C. 77k(a)(4). But counsel for underwriters, which is what Latham was, are not treated as experts under section 77k(a)(4).

Levy v. Huszagh - (E.D.N.Y.)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - In shareholder derivative action, bank was accused of improper statements and omissions regarding significant risks of loan losses in its financial statements. Federal District Judge Seybert held defendants’ statements could have been made pursuant to valid exercise of business judgment. (E.D.N.Y.)

Antietam Indus. Inc. v. Morgan Keegan & Co. Inc. (M.D. Fla.)

OPINION – Defendant lost in FINRA arbitration, and has subpoenaed FINRA for documents that may show the arbitrator was biased (as per FAA section 10(a)(2)). Plaintiff sought to quash the subpoena, arguing that defendant was on a fishing expedition, but even though the subpoena is broad, it is relevant to defendant’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.

COURT WIRE: JUST FILED