Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
@Ted Didn't know you could even do that with the disclaimer "past performance is no guarantee of future results". I guess you can sue over anything, but actually winning the lawsuit is the challenge.
Let the Games Continue. This brief blog was based on info reported in Reuters by John Stempel. Case noted is Epstein et al. v. Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc et al, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 650100/2016. Jurisdiction can't be right, but will assume plaintiff info is accurate. If so, it would be interesting to know the law firm representing them.
Earlier, I saw this: Jusan Yan, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC., J. MICHAEL PEARSON, HOWARD B. SCHILLER, and ROBERT L. ROSIELLO This was filed in the US District Court in New Jersey, in October, by LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC of New Jersy. Additional counsel: Pomerantz LLC (NYC and Chicago) I don't know anything about Greenberg, but it is generally not a good idea to get into it with Pomerantz. Very heavy hitters. http://pomerantzlawfirm.com/assets/complaints/valeant.PDF
Edit: NY jurisdiction is valid; most defendants reside in New York, and there is a nexus (business activity in NYS). Venue (NY county) is valid: at least one defendant lives in Manhattan.
@msf I meant the the jurisdiction, as reported, couldn't be right: New York State Supreme Court ; but now that I read the summons, it does say Supreme Court of the State of New York, so............ I'm gonna have to look up what branches of the NY court system call themselves, and what they do. Maybe cases like this start out, pro forma, at the top level, and then get assigned down if a case proceeds to trial?
I'd be surprised if this suit gets very far. While the prospectus might state 25% as an upper limit for a position, that usually means an upper limit for an initial investment. If that initial investment grows above the 25% level through appreciation, my impression is that legally that is fine. Sequoia's position grew to be in excess of 25%. I suspect the lawyers filing the suit may know this and may be saber rattling to get some sort of settlement or concession out of Sequoia. There is a humiliation factor here that is very damaging to Sequoia's image and could further cost them assets under management.
The top court in New York is the Court of Appeals. See recent obituary of widely respected Chief Judge Judith Kaye this past week:
"Judith S. Kaye, the first woman named to the highest court in New York and the first to serve as the state's chief judge - a job she held longer than any of her 21 male predecessors - died on Thursday at her home in Manhattan. ... Judge Kaye presided over the seven member Court of Appeals for nearly 16 years and also supervised the $2.5 billioin, 16,000-employee statewide judicial system, which she modernized by making jury service more equitable and convenient and by establishing boutique courts concerned as much with problem solving as with punishment."
Aside from those boutique courts and such, the lowest level trial court in New York State is Supreme Court.
@LewisBraham - that was my first impression, too. I haven't gone back to check whether the prospectus contains the usual verbiage about these conditions being satisfied when security is purchased (as opposed to being continuously satisfied).
Comments
Earlier, I saw this:
Jusan Yan, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC., J. MICHAEL PEARSON, HOWARD B. SCHILLER, and ROBERT L. ROSIELLO
This was filed in the US District Court in New Jersey, in October, by LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC of New Jersy. Additional counsel: Pomerantz LLC (NYC and Chicago)
I don't know anything about Greenberg, but it is generally not a good idea to get into it with Pomerantz. Very heavy hitters.
http://pomerantzlawfirm.com/assets/complaints/valeant.PDF
Venue (NY county) is valid: at least one defendant lives in Manhattan.
See p. 6 (pdf p. 8) of summons.
Here's the summons:
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=/Zf6BE2tSxyEaOhB_PLUS_ZKdkw==
Plaintiff attorneys and firms are listed on p. 2.
"Judith S. Kaye, the first woman named to the highest court in New York and the first to serve as the state's chief judge - a job she held longer than any of her 21 male predecessors - died on Thursday at her home in Manhattan. ... Judge Kaye presided over the seven member Court of Appeals for nearly 16 years and also supervised the $2.5 billioin, 16,000-employee statewide judicial system, which she modernized by making jury service more equitable and convenient and by establishing boutique courts concerned as much with problem solving as with punishment."
Aside from those boutique courts and such, the lowest level trial court in New York State is Supreme Court.
@LewisBraham - that was my first impression, too. I haven't gone back to check whether the prospectus contains the usual verbiage about these conditions being satisfied when security is purchased (as opposed to being continuously satisfied).
Thank you gobs. Fascinating! In New York, UP/SUPREME is DOWN--- this case has been appropriately assigned!