Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. agreed to supply parts for three types of aircraft manufactured by Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation and The Boeing Company. For these aircraft, Spirit managed production of the parts through three projects. Each project encountered production delays and cost overruns, and Spirit periodically reported to the public about the projects’ progress. In these reports, Spirit acknowledged risks but expressed confidence about its ability to meet production deadlines and ultimately break even on the projects. Eventually, however, Spirit announced that it expected to lose hundreds of millions of dollars on the three projects. Spirit’s stock price fell roughly 30 percent following the announcement. The plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of a class of individuals and organizations that had owned or obtained Spirit stock between November 3, 2011, and October 24, 2012. The named defendants were Spirit and four of its executives, whom plaintiffs alleged misrepresented and failed to disclose the projects' cost overruns and production delays, violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5. The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding in part that plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing scienter. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's order, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Anderson v. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings" on Justia Law

Respondent Steve Taylor invested $3 million in several investment companies operated by Sean Mueller. Unbeknownst to Taylor, the companies were part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme. The "Mueller Funds" received approximately $150 million in investments, and paid out a little less than $90 million to investors before collapsing. Taylor happened to receive approximately $3.4 million (a return of his invested principal plus net profit) prior to the collapse. Other investors were not as fortunate, losing a sum total of approximately $72 million. In 2010, Mueller ultimately pled guilty to securities fraud, and was sentenced to a total of 40 years in prison. In addition, he was ordered to pay over $64 million in restitution. Petitioner C. Randel Lewis was appointed as Receiver for the Mueller Funds, tasked with collecting Mueller's assets to his creditors and defrauded investors. The Receiver and Taylor signed a tolling agreement that extended the time period within which the Receiver could bring suit against Taylor in an attempt to recover assets. The eventual complaint sought to recover the net profit Taylor received. Taylor received his last payout in April 2007, and moved for summary judgment claiming the Receiver's claim was time barred due to the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court considered the tolling agreement and ruled in the Receiver's favor. Taylor appealed, and the court of appeals reversed, interpreting the term "extinguished," as used in 38-8-110(1), C.R.S. (2015), imposed a jurisdictional time limit on filing a claim, and that the parties could not toll that limit by agreement. The Supreme Court concluded that 38-8-110(1)'s time limitation could indeed be tolled by express agreement. The Court reversed the appellate court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Lewis v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulates contracts concerning commodities for future delivery when offered on margin or another form of leverage, 7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(D), with an exception for contracts that “results in actual delivery within 28 days or such other longer period as the Commission may determine by rule or regulation based upon the typical commercial practice in cash or spot markets for the commodity involved”. The CFTC began investigating whether Monex's precious-metals business was within this exception. Monex refused to comply with a subpoena, arguing that since 1987, when it adopted its current business model, the CFTC has deemed its business to be in compliance with all federal rules and that, because it satisfies the exception, the Commission lacked authority even to investigate. The district court enforced the subpoena. Monex turned over the documents. Monex appealed, seeking their return and an injunction to prevent the CFTC from using them in any enforcement proceeding. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that Monex was impermissibly using its opposition to the subpoena to get a judicial decision on the merits of its statutory argument, before the CFTC makes a substantive decision. The propriety of an agency’s action is reviewed after the final administrative decision. Contesting the agency’s jurisdiction does not change the rules for determining when a subpoena must be enforced. View "Commodities Futures Trading Comm'n v. Monex Deposit Co." on Justia Law

The Lindsays were minority shareholders of the 304 Corporation; its principal asset was Mid City Bank. In 2010, the Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance and the FDIC began an examination of the bank. In 2011, the Department appointed the FDIC as the bank's receiver, stating that “‘large commercial real estate loan and poor management practices . . . led to a deterioration of the bank’s capital’” so that there was “‘no option but to declare the insolvent institution receivership.’” The bank reopened and regained good standing. In 2014, the FDIC filed suit, alleging that Fitl “was grossly negligent and breached his fiduciary duties,” 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(2)(A)(i). The Lindsays also filed suit, alleging breach of fiduciary duties. The court dismissed. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed. The Lindsays’ claims are similar to all other shareholders’ claims and did not arise from a special duty, since the injury was not “separate and distinct.” The district court correctly concluded that the Lindsays’ claims were derivative in nature and that as a result of the FDIC lawsuit, the Lindsays had no standing to bring a derivative action on behalf of the corporation. View "Lindsay v. Fitl" on Justia Law

When the five investment funds at issue lost nearly 90 percent of their value in 2007-2008, investors lost large sums. Various plaintiffs (investors) initially filed claims with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, participated in arbitration, or filed state suits. In 2013, they filed suit under the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77k, 77l, and 77o, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5. They alleged that the funds were overvalued and concentrated in risky securities and that investors relied on misrepresentations in purchasing the funds. The district court initially granted class certification, but dismissed the claims as barred by the statutes of limitations. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the suits were barred by the applicable statutes of repose. The court declined to “toll” those statutes View "Stein v. Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund, Inc." on Justia Law

Manning held 2,000,000 shares of Escala stock. He claims that he lost most of his investment when its price plummeted after Merrill Lynch devalued Escala through “naked short sales.” Unlike a typical short sale, where a person borrows stock from a broker, sells it to a buyer on the open market, and later purchases the same number of shares to return to the broker, the seller in a “naked” short sale does not borrow the stock he puts on the market, and never delivers the promised shares to the buyer. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation SHO prohibits short-sellers from intentionally failing to deliver securities. Manning claimed violation of New Jersey law, but referred explicitly to Regulation SHO, citing past accusations against Merrill Lynch and suggesting that the transactions at issue had again violated the regulation. Merrill Lynch removed the case, invoking general federal-question jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. 1331, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78aa(a). The Third Circuit ordered remand, holding that Manning’s claims did not necessarily raise any federal issues and that the Exchange Act covers only cases that would satisfy the “arising under” test for general federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed. The jurisdictional test established by Section 27 is the same as Section 1331’s test for deciding if a case “arises under” a federal law. Section 27 confers federal jurisdiction over suits brought under the Exchange Act and the rare suit in which a state-law claim rises and falls on the plaintiff’s ability to prove the violation of a federal duty. View "Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning" on Justia Law

Magruder bought 940,000 shares of Bancorp through his Fidelity account, paying $9,298. Years later he asked Fidelity for a certificate showing his ownership. When Fidelity did not comply, Magruder initiated arbitration through the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Magruder and Fidelity chose simplified arbitration, in which the arbitrator cannot award more than $50,000 in damages or order specific performance that would cost more than $50,000. Magruder had demanded $28,000 (actual plus punitive damages). The arbitrator directed Fidelity to deliver a stock certificate or explain why it could not do so. Fidelity explained that in 2005 the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, responsible for issuing Bancorp paper certificates, had placed a “global lock” on that activity as a result of Bancorp reporting that fraudulent shares bearing identification number 106 were flooding the market. In 2012 Bancorp offered to swap series 106 shares for new series 205 shares, but by then Bancorp had been delisted from stock exchanges and FINRA blocked the swaps. The arbitrator accepted this explanation. Magruder then filed suit. The district judge sided with Fidelity. The Seventh Circuit vacated for lack of jurisdiction. Even assuming that the parties are of diverse citizenship, the stakes cannot exceed $50,000, and the minimum under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) is $75,000. View "Magruder v. Fidelity Brokerage Servs., LLC" on Justia Law

American Fidelity Assurance Company sued the Bank of New York Mellon (“BNYM”) for claims arising from BNYM’s conduct as Trustee of a trust holding mortgage-backed securities owned by American Fidelity. BNYM did not assert a personal jurisdiction defense in its first two motions to dismiss or in its answer. In its third motion to dismiss, BNYM argued it was not subject to general jurisdiction in Oklahoma. The district court denied the motion, concluding BNYM had waived the defense by failing to raise it in prior filings. BNYM challenges that decision in an interlocutory appeal. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "American Fidelity Assurance v. Bank of New York Mellon" on Justia Law

Defendants are national securities exchanges registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and operate as self‐regulatory organizations that regulate markets in conformance with securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78a. Plaintiffs are securities firms and members of the defendant exchanges. They compete for customer order flow by displaying buy and sell quotations for particular stocks. Between at least January 2004 and June 2011, each defendant charged “payment for order flow” (PFOF) fees. Each defendant exchange imposes PFOF fees when a trade is made for a customer; however, these fees are not imposed for proprietary “house trades,” where a firm trades on its own behalf. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of plaintiffs’ suit, in which they sought to recover PFOF fees they claim were improperly charged. The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies before the SEC. View "Citadel Sec., LLC v. Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc." on Justia Law

TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc., and its directors were defendants in two consolidated shareholder derivative suits filed in Washington State. TriQuint moved to dismiss those suits on the ground that its corporate bylaws establish Delaware as the exclusive forum for shareholder derivative suits. The trial court denied TriQuint’s motion to dismiss, and the Supreme Court allowed TriQuint’s petition for an alternative writ of mandamus. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that, as a matter of Delaware law, TriQuint’s bylaw was a valid forum-selection clause and bound its shareholders. The Court also concluded that, as a matter of Oregon law, the bylaw was enforceable. The Court issued a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the trial court to grant TriQuint’s motion to dismiss. View "Roberts v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc." on Justia Law