<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly &#187; Securities</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nclawyersweekly.com/category/opinion-digest/securities/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 20:13:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Securities &#8211; Commodities Futures – Commodity Exchange Act – Fraud&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/11/securities-commodities-futures-commodity-exchange-act-fraud/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/11/securities-commodities-futures-commodity-exchange-act-fraud/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:05:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. D.C. Western]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72179</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Commodities Futures – Commodity Exchange Act – FraudU.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. PMC Strategy, LLC </em> Defendant Hudspeth, an admitted controlling person of defendant PMC Strategy, LLC, solicited investments based on the results of PMC traders’ demo account, despite the fact that the traders’ actual accounts were losing money. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/11/securities-commodities-futures-commodity-exchange-act-fraud/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Securities &#8211; NCSA – First Impression – Real Property – Securitized Interests – Secondary Liability&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/securities-ncsa-first-impression-real-property-securitized-interests-secondary-liability/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/securities-ncsa-first-impression-real-property-securitized-interests-secondary-liability/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:18:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Business Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Securities Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=70919</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>NNN Durham Office Portfolio 1, LLC v. Highwoods Realty Ltd. Partnership</em> Where plaintiffs allege that they pooled their money in a common investment – real property subject to commercial leases – with an expected return common to all based on the success of a third party, plaintiffs have alleged an investment contract, which is a “security” within the meaning of the N.C. Securities Act. The defendant-seller and its defendant-real estate agent may have secondary liability for a violation of the NCSA.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/securities-ncsa-first-impression-real-property-securitized-interests-secondary-liability/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Securities &#8211; Unfair Trade Practices &#8211; ‘In or Affecting Commerce’ &#8211; Banks &amp; Banking&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/08/17/securities-unfair-trade-practices-%e2%80%98in-or-affecting-commerce%e2%80%99-banks-banking/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/08/17/securities-unfair-trade-practices-%e2%80%98in-or-affecting-commerce%e2%80%99-banks-banking/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:21:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Business Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Banks & Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unfair Trade Practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[‘In or Affecting Commerce’]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=57463</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>DeGorter v. Capitol Bancorp Ltd. </em>Even though plaintiff contends that “the business of the parties was to buy, develop, and market banks and bank services” and the underlying transaction was the purchase and sale of a bank, since plaintiff’s unfair trade practices claim is based on allegations that defendants deceived him into buying securities, plaintiff’s claim is not based on activities “in or affecting commerce” within the meaning of the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/08/17/securities-unfair-trade-practices-%e2%80%98in-or-affecting-commerce%e2%80%99-banks-banking/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Securities &#8211; Fraud &#8211; Leveraged Buyout &#8211; Disappointed Investors &#8211; Civil Practice &#8211; Pleadings Amendments&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/03/21/securities-fraud-leveraged-buyout-disappointed-investors-civil-practice-pleadings-amendments/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/03/21/securities-fraud-leveraged-buyout-disappointed-investors-civil-practice-pleadings-amendments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:17:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disappointed Investors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leveraged Buyout]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pleadings Amendments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Fraud]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=54858</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Katyle v. Penn National Gaming Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-01-0289, 31 pp.) (Baldock, J.) No. 09-2272, March 14, 2010; USDC at Greenbelt, Md. (Messitte, J.) 4th Cir. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: Plaintiffs, investors who were disappointed after a gaming company&#8217;s projected leveraged buyout failed to go through in 2008, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/03/21/securities-fraud-leveraged-buyout-disappointed-investors-civil-practice-pleadings-amendments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Securities &#8211; Securities Fraud &#8212; Offeror &#8212; Sufficient Evidence &#8212; Jury Verdict&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/03/08/securities-securities-fraud-offeror-sufficient-evidence-jury-verdict/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/03/08/securities-securities-fraud-offeror-sufficient-evidence-jury-verdict/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/03/08/securities-securities-fraud-offeror-sufficient-evidence-jury-verdict/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Latta v. Rainey. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-07-0208, 29 pp.) (Robert C. Hunter, J.) Appealed from Wilson County Superior Court. (William C. Griffin Jr., J.) N.C. App. Holding: Because the defendant&#8217;s company and not the defendant individually was the &#8220;offeror&#8221; of the securities at issue, the investments marketed by the defendant were not exempt from the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2010/03/08/securities-securities-fraud-offeror-sufficient-evidence-jury-verdict/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Securities &#8211; Fraud &#8211;E- Mail Stock Tip &#8211;Investor Newsletter&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/09/21/securities-fraud-e-mail-stock-tip-investor-newsletter/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/09/21/securities-fraud-e-mail-stock-tip-investor-newsletter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/09/21/securities-fraud-e-mail-stock-tip-investor-newsletter/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[U.S. Securities &#38; Exchange Comm&#8217;n v. Pirate Investor LLC. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-01-0881, 38 pp.) (Per Curiam) No. 08-1037, Sept. 15, 2009; USDC at Baltimore, Md. (Garbis, J.) 4th Cir. Holding: Pirate Investor, a Maryland LLC that publishes investment newsletters and subscriber e-mail &#8220;blasts,&#8221; violated federal securities laws when it sold an e-mail stock tip [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/09/21/securities-fraud-e-mail-stock-tip-investor-newsletter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Securities &#8211; Fraud &#8211; PSLRA &#8211; Scienter&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/08/10/securities-fraud-pslra-scienter/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/08/10/securities-fraud-pslra-scienter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/08/10/securities-fraud-pslra-scienter/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Matrix Capital Mgmt. Fund LP v. BearingPoint Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-01-0725, 49 pp.) (Michael, J.) No. 08-1035, July 31, 2009; USDC at Alexandria, Va. (O&#8217;Grady) 4th Cir. Holding: Disappointed investors&#8217; allegations that defendant company was seeking to avoid a default on its credit agreements in its statement to investors on a goodwill impairment charge [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/08/10/securities-fraud-pslra-scienter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Securities &#8211; Tort/Negligence &#8211; Fraud &#8211; Accountants &#8211; Corporate Audits &#8211; Scienter &#8211; Recklessness&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2008/01/09/securities-tortnegligence-fraud-accountants-corporate-audits-scienter-recklessness/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2008/01/09/securities-tortnegligence-fraud-accountants-corporate-audits-scienter-recklessness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2008 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. D.C. Eastern]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2008/01/09/securities-tortnegligence-fraud-accountants-corporate-audits-scienter-recklessness/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In re aaiPharma, Inc. Securities Litigation. (Lawyers Weekly No. 07-02-1375, 12 pp.) (James C. Dever III, J. &#8211; Order) E.D.N.C. Where plaintiffs cannot show that defendant Ernst &#38; Young was severely reckless in issuing its audit opinion in relation to defendant aaiPharma, then plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for securities fraud. Ernst &#38;Young&#8217;s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2008/01/09/securities-tortnegligence-fraud-accountants-corporate-audits-scienter-recklessness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Securities &#8211; Tort/Negligence &#8211; Fraud &#8211; Accountants &#8211; Corporate Audits &#8211; Scienter &#8211; Recklessness&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2007/12/24/securities-tortnegligence-fraud-accountants-corporate-audits-scienter-recklessness-2/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2007/12/24/securities-tortnegligence-fraud-accountants-corporate-audits-scienter-recklessness-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. D.C. Eastern]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2007/12/24/securities-tortnegligence-fraud-accountants-corporate-audits-scienter-recklessness-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In re aaiPharma, Inc. Securities Litigation. (Lawyers Weekly No. 07-02-1375, 12 pp.) (James C. Dever III, J. &#8211; Order) E.D.N.C. Where plaintiffs cannot show that defendant Ernst &#38; Young was severely reckless in issuing its audit opinion in relation to defendant aaiPharma, then plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for securities fraud. Ernst &#38;Young&#8217;s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2007/12/24/securities-tortnegligence-fraud-accountants-corporate-audits-scienter-recklessness-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
