SEC v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc. Docket: 14-51353 Opinion Date: April 21, 2017 Judge: James L. Dennis Areas of Law: Securities Law The SEC brought an enforcement action against LPHI and two of its senior officers, Pardo and Peden, alleging violations of reporting and anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The SEC alleged that LPHI, a company in the business of facilitating the sales of existing life insurance policies to investors, knowingly underestimated life expectancies for the insureds in public filings with the SEC. A jury found defendants liable for violations of section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 77q(a), 78m(a). The district court sustained the jury's verdict as to section 13(a), but the district court set aside the verdict as to section 17(a). The district court then imposed civil penalties and issued injunctions restraining them from committing additional violations of the securities laws. The district court declined to order Pardo to reimburse LPHI for compensation under section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), 15 U.S.C. 7243(a). Both parties appealed. The court found no abuse of discretion in the admission of the SEC expert witness's opinion; the evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdict that defendants aided and abetted LPHI's violation of section 13(a) and the rules thereunder; the court affirmed the district court's imposition of second-tier penalties; remanded the case specifically for recalculation of the number of violations without the flaws conceded by the SEC and for reassessment of the amounts of civil penalties imposed on defendants; and affirmed the district court's injunctions. As for the SEC's cross-appeal, the court concluded that the jury's section 17(a) verdict must stand and reversed the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law, remanding for determination of appropriate remedies; the district court erred in concluding that the restatements were not required by LPHI's misconduct in connection with its underestimated life expectancy estimates; and the court reversed the district court's judgment, remanding for that court to determine the appropriate amount of SOX reimbursements.
0 Comments
Neiman v. Bulmahn Docket: 15-31094 Opinion Date: April 21, 2017 Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson Areas of Law: Business Law, Securities Law Plaintiffs, shareholders of ATP, filed a securities class action concerning ATP's collapse into bankruptcy. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants, each of whom was an officer or director of ATP, misrepresented the production of Well 941 #4, ATP's liquidity and whether the company had the available funds to complete the Clipper pipeline, and the true reason that Matt McCarroll resigned as CEO of ATP. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. The court concluded that, viewing plaintiffs' allegations as a whole, plaintiffs failed adequately to allege scienter with regard to Defendant Reese's statements; plaintiffs' allegations of scienter as to ATP's liquidity and the Clipper project failed as a matter of law; and there was no basis for the court to conclude that Defendants Bulmahn and Reese knew or were reckless in not knowing McCarroll's true reasons for resigning. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. New Orleans Mayor: City won’t be deterred in statue removal www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-latest-confederate-monument-in-new-orleans-taken-down/2017/04/24/13182b74-28dd-11e7-9081-f5405f56d3e4_story.html?utm_term=.801035bc2725 Inmate held illegally for weeks files lawsuit against Orleans Parish
louisianarecord.com/stories/511105932-inmate-held-illegally-for-weeks-files-lawsuit-against-orleans-parish Louisiana justice’s civil rights case against peers denied
louisianarecord.com/stories/511105527-louisiana-justice-s-civil-rights-case-against-peers-denied Lafourche Sheriff Craig Webre's Opinion: Louisiana shouldn't jail people because they're addicted or mentally ill (SMART)
www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2017/04/louisiana_prison_reform_2.html Motorcycle helmets could soon be exempt from Louisiana mask-wearing ban www.nola.com/traffic/index.ssf/2017/04/motorcycle_helmets_exempt_mask.html Bill to shorten Louisiana’s divorce ‘cooling-off’ period stirs debate www.dailycomet.com/news/20170422/bill-to-shorten-louisianas-divorce-cooling-off-period-stirs-debate Bill would allow concealed carry without a permit in Louisiana http://www.wafb.com/story/35192778/bill-would-allow-concealed-carry-without-a-permit-in-louisiana%E2%80%8B U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions State of Texas v. Kleinert Docket: 15-51077 Opinion Date: April 20, 2017 Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson Areas of Law: Criminal Law Defendant, a federal task force officer, was indicted for manslaughter after he unintentionally shot and killed an unarmed suspect while trying to arrest the suspect. The district court dismissed the indictment, applying the doctrine of Supremacy Clause immunity. The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction according to the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, and defendant's assertion of a colorable federal defense; concluded that the district court correctly granted defendant's motion to dismiss because he is entitled to immunity from state prosecution under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution; but noted that, even if a federal officer satisfies every element of the immunity standard, the Supremacy Clause cannot shield the officer from federal consequences, such as prosecution by federal authorities or civil liability under federal law. The court affirmed the judgment. Lincoln v. Barnes Docket: 16-10327 Opinion Date: April 20, 2017 Judge: James Earl Graves, Jr. Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law This case arose out of a police shooting of John Lincoln. John was shot and killed in front of his daughter, Erin. Erin and her aunt Kelly subsequently filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the Cities of Colleyville and North Richland Hills, Texas, and several officers involved in the incident, including Officer Barnes. On appeal, Barnes challenged the district court's denial of qualified immunity. Erin asserted that officers violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure when they took her into custody without a warrant, probable cause, or justifiable reason and interrogated her against her will for many hours, refusing her access to her family. The court concluded that the police violate the Fourth Amendment when, absent probable cause or the individual's consent, they seize and transport a person to the police station and subject her to prolonged interrogation. Because the right was clearly established at the time of the violation, the court affirmed the judgment. Plea Hearing Delayed for Company Charged in Deadly Fire https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/louisiana/articles/2017-04-21/plea-hearing-delayed-for-company-charged-in-deadly-fire United States v. Jones Docket: 16-10463 Opinion Date: April 20, 2017 Judge: Jennifer Walker Elrod Areas of Law: Criminal Law Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2119 and 2, and to one count of using, carrying, or brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A). The court concluded that the minimal interstate commerce nexus that the court's precedent requires for prosecution under section 2119 was satisfied, and that carjacking is a "crime of violence" under section 924(c)(1). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. Wait to get divorced would be cut in half under legislation advanced by Louisiana House panel http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_e00b271e-2467-11e7-aa61-7794dedb3b53.html Louisiana may change the law that lets DAs seek life sentences for stealing candy
https://thinkprogress.org/louisiana-may-change-the-law-that-lets-das-seek-life-sentences-for-stealing-candy-4194d233b275 Louisiana sheriffs voice concerns about criminal justice revamp
http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_15ae3ffc-260f-11e7-abfa-d7599e2a3903.html Louisiana Man Who Spent Three Years on Death Row Has Murder Charge Dismissed
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/20/us/louisiana-death-row-inmate.html?_r=0 Halle v. Galliano Marine Service, LLC Docket: 16-30558 Opinion Date: April 19, 2017 Judge: Edward C. Prado Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law, Admiralty & Maritime Law Plaintiff filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., against Defendants Galliano Marine Service and C-Innovation, seeking to recover unpaid wages for overtime worked during his employment at C-Innovation. Defendants run a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) business for offshore applications and employed plaintiff as an ROV Technician and ROV Supervisor. The district court granted summary judgment against plaintiff. The court concluded that the district court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment because it has not been established as a matter of law that the seaman exemption applies. In this case, competing testimonial evidence regarding whether plaintiff was a master or subject to the authority, direction, and control of the master aboard a vessel precludes summary judgment. Furthermore, the district court must determine what proportion of plaintiff's time is spent on seaman's work. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings Can Louisiana shed "incarceration capital" label?
http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_e852c504-2515-11e7-aea3-27cd746d86e1.html U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Burdett v. Remington Arms Co., LLC Docket: 16-11216 Opinion Date: April 19, 2017 Judge: Robert A. Junell Areas of Law: Personal Injury, Products Liability Plaintiff filed suit against defendants after he was injured when his rifle suddenly discharged, firing a bullet through his foot. Plaintiff alleged five products liability claims and one claim under Texas law. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of defendants because plaintiff's claim was time-barred. At issue was whether the district court properly applied Texas's choice of law rules, which is dependent upon whether section 71.031(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code is a choice of law provision and whether the statute applies in federal court. The court concluded that Hyde v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. is controlling in this case. In light of Hyde, the court concluded that section 71.031 is a choice of law provision that applies in both state and federal courts, and an analysis of section 71.031 demonstrates the result is the same regardless of whether plaintiff is considered a resident of Texas or Georgia. In this case, even assuming the rifle was first purchased in 1998, plaintiff had until 2013 to initiate his products liability suit, but he did not do so until 2015, which was more than fifteen years from the date of the sale of the rifle. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. Louisiana Coastal Land Loss Declared a State Emergency https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/louisiana/articles/2017-04-19/louisiana-coastal-land-loss-declared-a-state-emergency Alexander v. City of Round Rock
Docket: 16-50839 Opinion Date: April 18, 2017 Judge: Edith Brown Clement Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law Plaintiff filed suit against law enforcement officers and the city under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights after officers pulled him over for suspicious activity and subsequently arrested him for resisting a search. The district court granted the officers' motion to dismiss all claims. The court could not conclude as a matter of law that plaintiff failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful detention. In this case, the most the officer could have observed was a man (plaintiff) briefly looking around a vehicle in the parking lot, turning to get into a car, noticing a police car, continuing to get into the car, and beginning to drive further into the parking lot. This was not a "headlong flight," nor "evasive" behavior. The court also concluded that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest plaintiff for resisting a search under Texas law, and because no objectively reasonable officer would conclude that such probable cause did exist, the court held that plaintiff has stated a Fourth Amendment claim; and the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from that claim at the motion to dismiss stage. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff did not state a valid claim for retaliation under either the First or Fifth Amendments. Finally, the court concluded that plaintiff's alleged injuries—though perhaps not sufficient on their own to satisfy the de minimis requirement—were enough to support a claim for excessive force at the motion to dismiss stage. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. Guilbeau v. Hess Corp.
Docket: 16-30971 Opinion Date: April 18, 2017 Judge: Priscilla R. Owen Areas of Law: Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Real Estate & Property Law Plaintiff purchased property on which oil and gas operations had been conducted. Plaintiff filed suit against Hess, asserting claims for damages stemming from contamination caused by the oil- and gas-related activities on the tract. The oil and gas leases expired in 1973 and plaintiff purchased the property in 2007, when all wells had been plugged and abandoned. The district court granted Hess's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the subsequent purchaser rule barred plaintiff's claims. The court explained that a clear consensus has emerged among all Louisiana appellate courts that have considered the issue, and they have held that the subsequent purchaser rule does apply to cases, like this one, involving expired mineral leases. Because this case presented no occasion to depart from precedent, the court deferred to these precedents, and held that the subsequent purchaser doctrine barred plaintiff's claims. The court noted that although the denial of a writ is not necessarily an approval of the appellate court's decision nor precedential, the Louisiana Supreme Court has had multiple opportunities to consider this issue and has repeatedly declined to do so. Finally, the court declined to certify questions to the state court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Decatur Hospital Authority v. Aetna Health, Inc. Docket: 16-10313 Opinion Date: April 18, 2017 Judge: James Earl Graves, Jr. Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Insurance Law, Legal Ethics Wise Regional, a Texas municipal hospital authority, filed suit against Aetna, an insurance plan administrator, in state court over a dispute regarding medical insurance claims Wise Regional submitted on behalf of its patients. Aetna removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1442, but the district court remanded to state court, awarding attorneys' fees. The court concluded that it had appellate jurisdiction over the remand order because Aetna relied upon the federal officer removal statute in its notice of removal; remand was proper because Aetna's notice of removal was untimely; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees where Aetna lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal of this action almost five months after expiration of the thirty-day deadline for removal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. Juvenile life sentences debated at Louisiana Capitol
http://www.wbrz.com/news/juvenile-life-sentences-debated-at-louisiana-capitol/ |
Louisiana Law BlogLouisiana Law, News, Issues and Comments from Attorneys at the Shoultz Law Firm Archives
April 2024
Categories |