Class Action Defense Cases-In re WorldCom: Second Circuit Reverses Judgment In Favor Of Defense Holding That Class Action Lawsuits Tolled Statutes Of Limitation For Claims By Putative Class Members Who Filed Individual Actions

District Court Erred in Denying American Pipe Tolling to Individual Plaintiffs who had Filed Lawsuits Prior to Court Ruling on Class Certification Motion in Securities Class Action, because as Matter of First Impression Class Action Complaint Tolled Statute of Limitations even as to Claims by all Putative Class Members Regardless of Whether They had Filed Individual Lawsuits Second Circuit Holds

Hundreds of individual and class action lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts against WorldCom and various bond underwriters, each of which ultimately found their way to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In re WorldCom Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 245, 2007 WL 2127874, *1 (2d Cir. 2007). After the district court certified a class action, defense attorneys for certain bond underwriters moved to dismiss the individual actions on the ground that they were time-barred because they had been added as named defendants after the limitations period had expired, id. Plaintiffs argued that the limitations period was tolled as to later-named defendants even though they had filed individual actions prior to a court ruling on whether to certify a class action, id. The district court agreed with defense attorneys, ruling that the plaintiffs’ claims were not tolled. The Second Circuit reversed, holding that even though plaintiffs had filed their individual lawsuits prior to the district court’s ruling on class certification, their claims were tolled under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), during the pendency of the class action litigation.

The district court summarized the facts underlying this litigation as follows: “For many years, WorldCom grew by acquisitions. By 1998, it had acquired more than sixty companies in transactions valued at over $70 billion…. In early 2000, however, its attempt to acquire Sprint collapsed. During this period of acquisition-driven expansion, WorldCom had used accounting devices to inflate its reported earnings. Senior WorldCom management instructed personnel in the company’s controller’s office on a quarterly basis to falsify WorldCom’s books to reduce WorldCom’s reported costs and thereby to increase its reported earnings. When the pace of acquisitions slowed, it added new strategies to disguise a decline in its revenues. In 2002, however, the scheme collapsed.” In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 294 F.Supp.2d 392, 400 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). In April 2002, the first class action lawsuit was filed against WorldCom, and a few months later, on June 25, “WorldCom admitted publicly that it had previously issued false and misleading financial statements” and that “it had overstated earnings and had falsely reported ordinary costs as capital expenditures.” In re WorldCom, 2007 WL 2127874 at *2. Soon after making these admissions WorldCom filed bankruptcy. Id. These admissions spawned dozens of securities class action lawsuits – transferred in August 2002 to the Southern District of New York by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation – and hundreds of individual lawsuits. Id. Between July 2002 and October 2003, more than 100 pension funds filed individual lawsuits against WorldCom in state courts; the actions were ultimately removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a) by virtue of WorldCom’s bankruptcy filing; in May 2003, these individual actions were consolidated with the class actions id.

A state-court class action was filed on April 21, 2003, in Alaska state court against several underwriters of WorldCom bonds; the class action was removed to the Southern District of New York in August 2003, and the following month, on September 24, 2003, the class action complaint was amended to name additional bond underwriters as defendants, among these the “Caboto defendants,” for violations of § 11 of the Securities Act but these allegations were “not based on fraud, but rather on negligence and strict liability for registration statements containing untrue statements of material fact.” In re WorldCom, 2007 WL at *3.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

WorldCom Class Action Defense Case: Second Circuit Holds Class Action Complaint Tolls Statute Of Limitations Of Putative Class Members Who File Individual Suits Prior To Certification Of Class Action

As Matter of First Impression, Second Circuit Holds that American Pipe Tolling Applies to Putative Class Members of Class Action who File Individual Lawsuits Prior to Decision on Class Action Certification

Prior to the filing of putative class action lawsuits and within one year after plaintiffs discovered “the untrue statement or the omission,” see 15 U.S.C. § 77m, certain pension funds filed individual lawsuits against underwriters of WorldCom bonds under Section 11 of the federal Securities Act of 1933 alleging that they had purchased bonds based on registration statements that contained false and misleading information. In re WorldCom Sec. Litig., ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 2127874, *1 (2d Cir. July 26, 2007). Numerous putative class action lawsuits also were filed against WorldCom and its bond underwriters, including Caboto-Gruppo Intensa and Caboto Holdings Sim, and these alleged _inter alia_ violations of Section 11, _id._ After the expiration of the one-year limitations period, the pension funds amended the individual complaints to add Caboto as party-defendants, _id._ Caboto defense attorneys moved to dismiss the individual actions as time-barred; plaintiffs countered that the class actions tolled the running of the statute of limitations. _Id._ The district court granted the defense motion, ruling that the class action complaints did not toll the limitations period because plaintiffs had filed suit before a decision on class certification in the class action lawsuits. _Id._ The Second Circuit reversed.

Briefly, WorldCom falsified financial records to paint an inaccurate picture of the company’s profitability, but in 2002 “the scheme collapsed.” In re WorldCom, at *2. A class action complaint was filed against WorldCom in April 2002, and numerous other class actions soon followed. More than 120 individual lawsuits also were filed against the company, all of which were removed to federal court based on WorldCom’s petition for bankruptcy protection. Id. By May 2003, the individual actions had been consolidated with the class action complaints, id. In October 2003, the district court certified a class action against WorldCom alleging securities violations; that class action complaint included Section 11 claims against Caboto and other bond underwriters. Id., at *3. In analyzing Caboto’s motion to dismiss the class action and individual claims, the district court found that the statute of limitations began to run no later than June 25, 2002, but that Caboto and certain other bond underwriters were not named as defendants until September 24, 2003 – three months after the expiration of the one year limitations period. Id., at *4.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

PSLRA Class Action Defense Cases-Baker v. MBNA: Delaware Federal Court Grants Defense Motion To Dismiss One Count In Class Action Complaint Against Two Individuals Only But Otherwise Denies Motion

Class Action Complaint Adequately Alleged Section 10(a) Control Person Liability as to All Individual Defendants and Adequately Alleged Section 10(b) Violation Against Company and Three of its Officers, but Failed to Establish Necessary Inference of Scienter as to Two Other Officers Warranting Dismissal of Claim Against Them Only Delaware Federal Court Holds

Nine (9) securities class action lawsuits were filed against MBNA and consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The consolidated class action complaint sought to represent purchasers of MBNA securities and alleged that the company of five of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Baker v. MBNA Corp., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2007 WL 2009673, *1 (D. Del. July 6, 2007). Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action; the federal court dismissed one count as against two of the individual defendants, but otherwise denied the defense motion.

The class action complaint named MBNA and MBNA officers Bruce L. Hammonds, Kenneth A. Vecchione, Richard K. Struthers, Charles C. Krulak, and John R. Cochran, III, and alleged that defendants reported false information concerning its growth in order to artificially inflate the stock price for their personal financial gain. Baker, at *1. The details of the allegedly false statements are discussed in the court’s opinion, see id., at *1-*2. The class action contained two counts only: one for violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and one for violations of Section 20(a) against the individual defendants. Id., at *3. All defendants moved for dismissal of the class action complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b), id. In addition to noting its safe harbor provision, the district court summarized the impact of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) on securities cases at page *4 as follows:

Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

PSLRA Class Action Defense Cases-Tellabs v. Makor: Supreme Court Holds In Securities Class Action That “Strong Inference” Of Scienter Under PSLRA Requires “More Than Merely Plausible Or Reasonable” Inference

Required “Strong Inference” of Scienter Under Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) “Must be More than Merely Plausible or Reasonable – it Must be Cogent and at Least as Compelling as any Opposing Inference of Nonfraudulent Intent” Supreme Court Holds

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Tellabs and its CEO alleging violations of federal securities laws; defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action complaint on the grounds that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) required plaintiffs to plead facts sufficient to support a “strong inference” of scienter, and that the putative class action failed to do so. The district court granted the defense motion, but the Seventh Circuit reversed and reinstated the class action. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. __, 127 S.Ct. 2499 (2007). The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

The Supreme Court recognized the positive aspects of private actions to enforce federal antifraud securities laws, but noted “if not adequately contained, [they] can be employed abusively to impose substantial costs on companies and individuals whose conduct conforms to the law.” Tellabs, at 2504. One control enacted by Congress consists of the exact pleading requirements in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), which “requires plaintiffs to state with particularity both the facts constituting the alleged violation, and the facts evidencing scienter, i.e., the defendant’s intention ‘to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.’” Id. (citations omitted). Specifically, the PSLRA requires that the complaint “state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind,” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2). Congress, however, did not define the term “strong inference” and circuit courts have disagreed on its meaning. Tellabs, at 2504.

Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

SLUSA Class Action Defense Cases-Instituto v. Lehman Brothers: Pension Manager Lawsuits Constituted “Covered Class Action” Under Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act Florida Federal Court Holds

Florida Federal Court Reaffirms Prior Ruling that Lawsuits by Quasi-Governmental Agency on Behalf of Military Personnel Against Financial Institutions for Pension Fund Losses Constituted “Covered Class Actions” Within the Meaning of SLUSA (Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act)

Plaintiff, a quasi-governmental agency that manages pension funds for armed forces personnel, filed a putative class action in Florida state court against Lehman Brothers alleging violations of various Florida state laws. Instituto de Prevision Militar v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 485 F.Supp.2d 1340, 1342 n.1 (S.D. Fla. 2007). The district court sua sponte held that the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) preempted plaintiff’s claims and dismissed the class action complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff sought reconsideration on the ground, inter alia, that the lawsuit was not a “covered class action” within the meaning of SLUSA; the district court denied reconsideration.

“Plaintiff Instituto de Prevision Militar … is a quasi-governmental agency of the Republic of Guatemala that, inter alia, manages the pension funds for members of the Guatemalan Armed Forces.” Instituto, at 1342. In July 2001, plaintiff was solicited by Pension Fund of America (PFA) to deposit pension funds with Lehman Brothers in a retirement trust account; believing PFA was the agent of Lehman (it was not), plaintiff invested more than $28 million in PFA through Lehman, id. Plaintiff alleges that PFA was “carrying out an embezzlement and money laundering scheme,” and this formed the basis of a lawsuit it filed against PFA in November 2002. Id. Through that action, plaintiff obtained an order compelling Lehman to liquidate its account, but the funds thus obtained were insufficient to cover its investment so plaintiff filed suit against Lehman, id., at 1342-43. Plaintiff also filed a putative class action against Merrill Lynch, and the district court consolidated the three cases for discovery purposes. Id., at 1343.

Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

Credit Suisse Class Action Defense Case-Credit Suisse v. Billing: Supreme Court Holds Antitrust Class Action Based On Syndicate Conduct In Sale Of IPOs Barred Because “Clearly Incompatible” With Securities Laws

Federal Securities laws Barred Class Action Complaints Alleging Antitrust Violations Because, under Facts of the Case, Securities Laws “Implicitly Precluded” Enforcement of Antitrust Laws United States Supreme Court Holds

Purchasers of initial public offerings (IPOs) filed a class action against various underwriting firms that market and distribute IPOs for antitrust violations alleging that defendants “unlawfully agreed with one another that they would not sell shares of a popular new issue to a buyer unless that buyer committed (1) to buy additional shares of that security later at escalating prices (a practice called ‘laddering’), (2) to pay unusually high commissions on subsequent security purchases from the underwriters, or (3) to purchase from the underwriters other less desirable securities (a practice called ‘tying’).” Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing, 551 U.S. __ (June 18, 2007) [Slip Opn., at 1]. Defense attorneys argued that the antitrust violations underlying the class action complaint were precluded by the federal securities laws, id., at 4. The district court agreed with the defense arguments and dismissed the class actions, but the Second Circuit reversed and reinstated the class action complaints, id. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Second Circuit, id., at 4; the Supreme Court held that “we must interpret the securities laws as implicitly precluding the application of the antitrust laws to the conduct alleged in this case,” id., at 1.

The antitrust class action lawsuits arose from the following facts. As part of an IPO, underwriters “will typically form a syndicate to help market the shares,” which in turn estimates market demand and recommends offering price and number of shares for the offering. Credit Suisse, at 2. The syndicate then commits to purchase from the company all of the newly issued shares on a date certain for a fixed price; the price reflects “[the] price the syndicate will charge investors when it resells the shares,” but the syndicate’s actual purchase price reflects a discount that “amounts to the syndicate’s commission.” Id. In other words, the syndicate purchases the shares at a discounted price, and then resells them at the agreed upon fixed price, id., at 3. From this, class actions were filed alleging that defendant underwriters “abused” the syndication practice “by agreeing among themselves to impose harmful conditions upon potential investors,” id.; the Supreme Court added that these were “conditions that the investors apparently were willing to accept in order to obtain an allocation of new shares that were in high demand,” id. These conditions included entering into laddering agreements, tying agreements and paying excessive commissions, thereby “artificially inflat[ing] the share prices of the securities in question,” id., at 4.

Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Oscar v. Allegiance: Fifth Circuit Holds That Loss Causation Must Be Established To Certify Securities Fraud Class Action And Criticizes Efficient Market Theory

To Invoke Presumption of Reliance in Securities Fraud Class Action Based on Fraud on the Market Doctrine, Plaintiff must Establish Loss Causation at Time of Motion to Certify Class Action Fifth Circuit Holds

Plaintiffs filed a securities fraud class action against telecommunications provider Allegiance Telecom and others alleging violations of section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 based on an inaccurate statement concerning the number of line installations during the first three quarters of 2001 and a drop in stock price following a restated line count announced during the fourth quarter of that year. Oscar Private Equity Inv. v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc., 487 F.3d 261, 2007 WL 1430225, *1 (5th Cir. May 16, 2007). Plaintiffs’ lawyer moved to certify the litigation as a class action, advancing a “fraud on the market” theory to establish reliance by class members; defense attorneys objected to class action treatment, arguing that the restatement was not the cause of a drop in the stock price, id. The district court relied on the “fraud on the market” theory, rejected defense arguments, and certified a class action as requested. Id. The Fifth Circuit granted the defense leave to file an interlocutory appeal and reversed. The Circuit Court summarized its holding as follows: “We vacate the certification order and remand, persuaded that the class certified fails for wont of any showing that the market reacted to the corrective disclosure. Given the lethal force of certifying a class of purchasers of securities enabled by the fraud-on-the-market doctrine, we now in fairness insist that such a certification be supported by a showing of loss causation that targets the corrective disclosure appearing among other negative disclosures made at the same time.” Id. (italics added).

The details of the events that precipitated the filing of the class action complaint are set forth in the Note, below. The Fifth Circuit explained: “This dispute turns on whether the certification order properly relied upon the fraud-on-the-market theory. This theory permits a trial court to presume that each class member has satisfied the reliance element of their 10b-5 claim. Without this presumption, questions of individual reliance would predominate, and the proposed class would fail. Oscar, at *2 (footnotes omitted) (italics added). Under the fraud on the market theory, “Reliance is presumed if the plaintiffs can show that ‘(1) the defendant made public material misrepresentations, (2) the defendant’s shares were traded in an efficient market, and (3) the plaintiffs traded shares between the time the misrepresentations were made and the time the truth was revealed.’” Id. (citation omitted). In the Fifth Circuit, it is insufficient for a plaintiff to show that defendant made a material misstatement; rather, “proof that the misstatement actually moved the market” is required, id., at *3. The Circuit Court explained at page *3:

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Warlop v. Lernout: Massachusetts Federal Court Grants Defense Motion To Dismiss Securities Class Action On Grounds Of Forum Non Conveniens

Class Action on Behalf of Purchasers of Stock on NASDAQ Europe More Properly Brought in Belgium, Warranting Dismissal of Class Action on Grounds of Forum Non Conveniens Massachusetts Federal Court Holds

Plaintiffs, three individuals from Belgium, filed a putative securities class action against Lernout & Hauspie N.V., a Belgian company that developed speech recognition software, and other defendants on behalf of those who purchased L&H securities on the European EASDAQ stock exchange for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and of Rule 10b-5. Warlop v. Lernout, 473 F.Supp.2d 260, 261 (D. Mass. 2007). This class action was but one of several class actions filed against L&H, and this court opinion is but one of “several extensive opinions concerning the alleged fraudulent scheme causing the collapse of L&H,” id., at 261-62 (citations omitted). Defense attorneys for Belgian defendants KPMG-Belgium, the Outside Directors, Vanderhoydonck and Willaert moved to dismiss the class action under Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds of forum non conveniens. The district court granted the motion.

Briefly, L&H was at one time very successful, and traded simultaneously on both Europe’s EASDAQ market (known as “NASDAQ Europe”) and NASDAQ. Warlop, at 262. The class action complaint alleged that the company’s success was founded on misrepresentions by its directors concerning L&H’s finances, and on “the fraudulent creation of sham firms in Belgium and elsewhere which licensed software,” id. The fraud was discovered in August 2000 and EASDAQ suspending trading of the company’s securities; ultimately L&H collapsed. Id. A criminal investigation followed, leading to the arrest by the Belgian government of three L&H directors – Lernout, Hauspie and Willaert; by operation of Belgian law, all civil cases were stayed during the pendency of the still on-going criminal investigation, including a civil action by the class action plaintiffs in this case that essentially tracks the allegations in the class action complaint. Id. As noted above, several securities class actions were filed in various federal courts; the actions were eventually consolidated before the District of Massachusetts, and the consolidated amended class action complaint limited the scope of the class action to individuals who purchased L&H stock on NASDAQ. Id.

Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

Merck Class Action Defense Cases-In re Merck: New Jersey Federal Court Grants Defense Motion To Dismiss Securities Fraud Class Action Finding Class Action Claims Barred By Statute Of Limitations

Extensive News Reports of the Risks of Vioxx Placed Investors on Inquiry Notice More than Two Years before Filing of Securities Fraud Class Actions, Thus Warranting Dismissal of Class Action Complaint as Time-Barred as Requested by Defense Federal Court Holds

This securities fraud class action is but one of thousands of class action and individual complaints filed against Merck arising out of its prescription drug Vioxx. This class action alleged that Merck withheld information that Vioxx increased a patient’s risk of heart attack and misrepresented the drug’s safety. In re Merck & Co., Inc., Securities, Derivative & “ERISA” Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (D. N.J. April 12, 2007) [Slip Opn., at 2]. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action complaint on several grounds, mostly notably that the claims were time-barred, _id._, at 1-2; the district court agreed with the statute of limitations defense and dismissed the class action complaint with prejudice as untimely.

By way of background, Merck brought Vioxx – a nonsterodial anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) – to the market in May 1999,and two years later the Food & Drug Administration approved Vioxx for various uses. Slip Opn, at 2-3. “Merck continued to research, study and test Vioxx after its approval by the FDA and introduction to the market.” Id., at 3. In March 2000, Merck disclosed that one of those studies revealed that an increased incidence of heart attack and other thrombotic events. Id. Merck’s press release attributed this finding to the properties of the control drug but, according to the class action complaint allegations, Merck knew that the real cause of this difference was that Vioxx increased the risk of heart attacks. Id., at 4. The FDA advisory committee found inclusive evidence of the cause of the increased risk of cardiac events but believed it prudent to “include on the Vioxx label data about the higher incidence of cardiovascular events,” id. The study received extensive news coverage as early as April 2000, and several news articles warned patients that Vioxx “might increase their risk of suffering a heart attack.” Id., at 5. Other news reports agreed with Merck’s conclusion that the control drug used in the study worked to prevent heart attacks, thus accounting for the difference in incidence of cardiac events with the Vioxx control group, id., at 6-7. For its part, Merck issued numerous press releases touting the safety of Vioxx, id., at 7-8. The FDA criticized Merck’s promotional efforts, and in a warning letter dated September 17, 2001 and published on the FDA website, the FDA “admonished Merck for misrepresenting the safety profile of Vioxx, downplaying the cardiovascular findings of the . . . study,” id., at 8.

PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized

PSLRA Class Action Defense Cases-In re EVCI Colleges: New York Federal Court Holds Safe Harbor Provision In Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) Inapplicable At Pleading Stage Of Securities Fraud Class Action

Federal Court Rejects Defense Motion to Dismiss Securities Fraud Class Action Holding that Class Action Complaint Satisfied Heightened Pleading Requirements Under PSLRA and that Applicability of PSLRA’s Safe Harbor Provision Required Factual Development Through Discovery

Plaintiffs filed a securities class action against EVCI and certain officers and directors for violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1924 and Rule 10b-5 alleging that defendants misstated EVCI’s financial condition and failed to accurately disclose negative information that would bear directly on EVCI’s profitability. In re EVCI Colleges Holding Corp. Securities Litig., 469 F.Supp.2d 88 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Defense attorneys argued that the 203-paragraph class action complaint failed to satisfy the heightened pleadings requirements of the federal Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) and had failed to adequately plead scienter. Id., at 91. The district court observed that “[i]f read too literally, the statute would appear to impose on a securities plaintiff the almost insuperable burden of having to file a complaint that is as comprehensive as his closing argument after trial.” Id. The court concluded that the allegations in the class action complaint clearly satisfied the pleadings requirements under the PSLRA and Rule 9(b), and criticized defense attorneys for filing the motion to dismiss, which it characterized as “utterly lacking in merit.”

EVCI is a holding company that provides “on-campus career two year college education” through three entities. Its principal subsidiary is Interboro; this asset “generates the bulk of EVCI’s revenue” which “has grown substantially, from $8.6 million in 2000 to $50.4 million in 2005.” EVCI, at 92. The class action complaint alleged “pervasive fraud in the admissions process at EVCI’s Interboro College – the institution that generated nearly all of EVCI’s revenue during the asserted class period. Id. In brief, Interboro is two-year college, conditionally accredited by the State of New York, that primarily served “minority students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds” who had neither a high school diploma nor a GED, id., at 93. These students were required to pass an “ability-to-benefit” exam (ATB), and required federal and state grants to pay for their education at Interboro, and Interboro limited its tuition to the amounts of the student grants, id. “In other words, Interboro’s revenues derive in substantial part – 94%, to be precise – from publicly funded education grants awarded to students who are both poor and poorly prepared for higher education. And EVCI, in turn, derives nearly all its revenue from Interboro.” Interboro was subject to strict state and federal regulation, and to maintain its conditional accreditation the college had to meet several goals, id.

Class Action Court Decisions PSLRA/SLUSA Class Actions Uncategorized