Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

A promissory note for a loan to aid defendant’s development scheme, which was not offered to the general public, is not considered a “security.”  Read More

The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act does not confer federal jurisdiction over a complaint alleging state law securities claims within the exception to SLUSA's general prohibition of state law securities class actions, except for the limited purpose of determining whether a putative class action is banned by SLUSA's general preclusion of such suits.  Read More

To establish liability under Rule 10b-5 plaintiff need not show that the person who breached a duty of trust by giving inside information to a trading relative or friend acquired a pecuniary or similarly valuable item in exchange for the information.  Read More

The district court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s 10b-5 complaint based on lack of scienter, since defendant told its investors a misleading half-truth by disclosing that animal studies had confirmed the drug’s efficacy but omitting the fact that rats who received the drug had shown increased incidence of cancer.  Read More

In this derivative suit, shareholders failed to allege facts sufficient to show futility of demanding that the board of directors remedy corporation's alleged bribery of foreign officials, since complaint did not sufficiently aver that insiders controlled a majority of the board or that board members likely faced personal liability for the corporation’s acts.  Read More

Buyer of bogus securities states a federal securities fraud claim against the promoter’s lawyer who represented that the promoter was who he purported to be and who misdirected buyer’s downpayment to promoter personally rather than seller company.  Read More

Corp. Code 1601 is interpreted to require a California corporation to allow a shareholder to inspect the corporation's records, but only at the location where those records are ordinarily maintained.  Read More

Under Federal Securities Exchange Act section 27 (15 USC 78aa(a)), federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction if either (a) plaintiff’s claim is created by the Exchange Act, or rules or regulations adopted under it, or (b) if the suit necessarily raises a substantial, disputed federal securities law issue.  Read More

1 2 3