<?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>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/09/10/second-circuit-clarifies-materiality-requirement-in-securities-fraud-cases/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Aug 2026 11:30:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.9</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Second Circuit Clarifies Materiality Requirement in Securities Fraud Cases</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/09/10/second-circuit-clarifies-materiality-requirement-in-securities-fraud-cases/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=second-circuit-clarifies-materiality-requirement-in-securities-fraud-cases</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/09/10/second-circuit-clarifies-materiality-requirement-in-securities-fraud-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:03:19 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Crisis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation & Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cash reserves]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fait v. Regions Financial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial crisis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Materiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. federal courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=21447?d=20150113160827EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recently, the Second Circuit decided Fait v. Regions Financial Corp., No. 10-2311-cv (2d Cir. Aug. 23, 2011), in which the Court affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action alleging violations of Sections 11(a), 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the &#8220;Securities Act&#8221;). The Second Circuit held that defendants&#8217; alleged failures to [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Brad S. Karp, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, on Saturday, September 10, 2011 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;"><a href="http://www.paulweiss.com/brad-s-karp/" target="_blank">Brad Karp</a> is chairman and partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &amp; Garrison LLP. This post is based on a Paul Weiss client memorandum.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>Recently, the Second Circuit decided <em>Fait v. Regions Financial Corp.</em>, No. 10-2311-cv (2d Cir. Aug. 23, 2011), in which the Court affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action alleging violations of Sections 11(a), 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the &#8220;Securities Act&#8221;). The Second Circuit held that defendants&#8217; alleged failures to write down goodwill in a timely manner and to increase loan loss reserves sufficiently during the financial crisis were not actionable, because defendants&#8217; challenged statements were matters of opinion rather than fact. Thus, plaintiffs had to allege that defendants did not believe the statements were true at the time they were made, something the complaint failed to do. <em>Fait</em> promises to be a useful tool in defending claims under the Securities Act, as well as claims that a defendant otherwise misstated financial figures, when those figures depend on the judgment of management rather than strictly objective criteria. The decision may be particularly important with respect to claims against accounting firms, whose conclusions based on their audits of financial statements and internal control regularly take the form of an expression of opinion.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/09/10/second-circuit-clarifies-materiality-requirement-in-securities-fraud-cases/#more-21447" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Second Circuit Clarifies Materiality Requirement in Securities Fraud Cases">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/09/10/second-circuit-clarifies-materiality-requirement-in-securities-fraud-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
