On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Securities Litigation 2018: From Investigation to Trial

Released on: Apr. 11, 2018
Running Time: 06:23:43

The landscape of securities litigation is constantly evolving and changing.  This program takes you through all the issues that can arise in the most complex securities matters — from the initial government investigation to the filing of the civil cases to either settlement or trial. If you practice in this dynamic field, you know that the need to stay current and develop new strategies and tactics has never been more important. Our faculty of leading practitioners, government officials, and judges will update you on the latest best practices and case law.


Lecture Topics
[Total RunTime: 06:23:43]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Opening Remarks* [00:16:15]
    Jonathan K. Youngwood, Lyle Roberts
  • Securities Litigation: The Investigation: Coordinating Requests from Government [00:57:10]
    Lyle Roberts, Katherine R. Goldstein, Brad S. Karp, Adam S. Hakki, Jonathan R. Tuttle
  • Commencement of a Civil Action: Filing the Complaint, Preparing the Motion to Dismiss, Coordinating Multiple Securities Litigation Actions [00:57:29]
    Jonathan K. Youngwood, Tracey Cushing Gilliam, Sherrie R. Savett, Geoffrey J. Ritts, Robert T. Vermylen
  • Prosecuting and Defending the Civil Action: Class Certification, Fact Discovery, Experts and Summary Judgment Motions in Securities Litigation [00:55:59]
    Lyle Roberts, Katherine M. Sinderson, Jonathan Gardner, Linton Mann III, Robert Stern
  • Seeking Resolution: Strategies in Mediation and Settlement of a Securities Case [01:19:12]
    Jonathan K. Youngwood, Dr. Patrick Conroy, Richard F. Dziedziula, Amanda T. Perez, Kimberly A. Justice, Michael D. Young
  • Securities Litigation: Trial of the Civil Action or Arbitration [00:55:52]
    Lyle Roberts, Karin A. DeMasi, Nicholas I. Porritt, James R. Swanson
  • Ethical Issues in Complex Securities Litigation [01:01:46]
    Jonathan K. Youngwood, Felipe J. Arroyo, Paul C. Gluckow, Amelia T.R. Starr, C. Evan Stewart

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK

  • Oral Downloads of Interview Memoranda to Government Regulators Waive Work Product Protection (December 15, 2017)
    Jonathan R. Tuttle
  • United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mathias Francisco Sandoval Herrera and Maria D. Cidre, Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Morgan Lewis’s Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration, Case No. 17-cv-20301-Lenard/Goodman, (S.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2017)
    Jonathan R. Tuttle
  • United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mathias Francisco Sandoval Herrera, et al., Order on Defendants’ Motion to Compel Production from Non-Party Law Firm, Case No. 17-20301-CIV-Lenard/Goodman (S.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2017)
    Jonathan R. Tuttle
  • United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mathias Francisco Sandoval Herrera and Maria D. Cidre, Morgan Lewis’ Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration of the Order on Defendants’ Motion to Compel Production, Case No. 17-cv-20301-Lenard/Goodman (S.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2017)
    Jonathan R. Tuttle
  • Securities Litigation Basics (PowerPoint slides)
    Amelia Starr
  • On Track Betting (August 21, 2017)
    Lyle Roberts
  • Bielousov v. GoPro, Inc., 2017 WL 3168522, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,827 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2017)
    Lyle Roberts
  • Cyan Argued (November 29, 2017)
    Lyle Roberts
  • Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, Public Law 105–353 (Nov. 3, 1996)
    Lyle Roberts
  • Two Bites At The Apple (January 9, 2018)
    Lyle Roberts
  • In re Finisar Corporation Securities Litigation, 2017 WL 6026244, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,929 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2017)
    Lyle Roberts
  • Top 100 Settlements (July 20, 2017)
    Lyle Roberts
  • The Top 100 U.S. Class Action Settlements of All Time (December 31, 2017)
  • Rites of Confession (October 27, 2017)
    Lyle Roberts
  • Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health Systems, Inc., 877 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2017)
    Lyle Roberts
  • Credible Complaints (December 29, 2017)
    Lyle Roberts
  • In re VEON Ltd. Securities Litigation, 2017 WL 4162342, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,879 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2017)
    Lyle Roberts
  • A Tale of Two Judges
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Caveat Corporate Litigator: The First Circuit Sets Back the Attorney Work Product Doctrine
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Exes and the Attorney-Client Privilege
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers?
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Good Golly Miss Molly!: The Attorney Work Product Doctrine Takes Another Hit
    C. Evan Stewart
  • ‘Here’s Johnny!’: Carnacing the Future of the SEC’s Preemption Overreach
    C. Evan Stewart
  • In-House Counsel as Whistleblower: a Rat Without a Remedy?
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Lawyers and the Border Patrol: The Challenges of Multi-Jurisdictional Practice
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Mad Dogs and Englishman
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Mad Dogs and Englishmen: Part Deux
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Navigating State-Based Ethics Rules and Sarbanes-Oxley Requirements
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Of Mice, Men, Migratory Lawyers, and Multijurisdictional Practice
    Daniel Tabak, C. Evan Stewart, Jonathan Hofer
  • Ohio Takes a Bite Out of the Big Apple
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Pigs Get Fat, Hogs Get Slaughtered: Keeping Lawyers Out of the Slaughterhouse
    C. Evan Stewart
  • “Positively 4th Street”: Lawyers and the “Scripting” of Witnesses
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Attorney-Client Privilege: Misunderestimated or Misunderstood?
    C. Evan Stewart
  • The End of Conflicts of Interest?: Courts Warm Up to Advance Waivers
    C. Evan Stewart
  • The Fork in the Road: The SEC and Preemption
    C. Evan Stewart
  • The Legal Profession and Conflicts: Ain’t No Mountain High Enough?
    C. Evan Stewart
  • Thus Spake Zarathustra (and other Cautionary Tales for Lawyers)
    C. Evan Stewart

Presentation Material


  • Introduction
    Lyle Roberts, Jonathan K. Youngwood
  • Securities Litigation: The Investigation: Coordinating Requests from Government Regulators
    Katherine R. Goldstein, Adam S. Hakki, Brad S. Karp, Lyle Roberts, Jonathan R. Tuttle
  • Commencement of a Civil Action: Filing the Compliant, Preparing the Motion to Dismiss, Coordinating Multiple Securities Litigation Actions
    Tracey Cushing Gilliam, Geoffrey J. Ritts, Sherrie R. Savett, Robert T. Vermylen, Jonathan K. Youngwood
  • Prosecuting and Defending the Civil Action: Class Certification, Fact Discovery, Experts and Summary Judgement Motions in Securities Litigation
    Jonathan Gardner, Linton Mann III, Lyle Roberts, Katherine M. Sinderson, Robert Stern
  • Seeking Resolution: Strategies in Mediation and Settlement of Securities Case
    Maureen Chakraborty, Dr. Patrick Conroy, Richard F. Dziedziula, Kimberly A. Justice, Amanda T. Perez, Michael R. Young, Jonathan K. Youngwood
  • Securities Litigation: Trial of the Civil Action or Arbitration
    Karin A. DeMasi, Nicholas I. Porritt, Lyle Roberts, James R. Swanson
  • Ethical Issues in Complex Securities Litigation
    Felipe J. Arroyo, Paul C. Gluckow, Amelia T.R. Starr, C. Evan Stewart, Jonathan K. Youngwood
Co-Chair(s)
Lyle Roberts ~ Shearman & Sterling LLP
Jonathan K. Youngwood ~ Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
Speaker(s)
Felipe J. Arroyo ~ Robbins Arroyo LLP
Dr. Patrick Conroy ~ Chair of Securities and Finance Practice and Managing Director, NERA Economic Consulting
Karin A. DeMasi ~ Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
Jonathan Gardner ~ Labaton Sucharow LLP
Tracey Cushing Gilliam ~ SVP & Chief Counsel - Litigation, MetLife
Paul C. Gluckow ~ Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
Katherine R. Goldstein ~ Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
Adam S. Hakki ~ Shearman & Sterling LLP
Kimberly A. Justice ~ Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP
Brad S. Karp ~ Chairman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Linton Mann III ~ Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
Amanda T. Perez ~ Assistant General Counsel, Pfizer Inc.
Nicholas I. Porritt ~ Levi & Korsinsky LLP
Geoffrey J. Ritts ~ Jones Day
Sherrie R. Savett ~ Berger & Montague, P. C.
Katherine M. Sinderson ~ Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
Amelia T.R. Starr ~ Davis Polk & Wardwell
Robert Stern ~ Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
C. Evan Stewart ~ Cohen & Gresser LLP
James R. Swanson ~ Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley Willis & Swanson, L.L.P.
Jonathan R. Tuttle ~ Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Robert T. Vermylen ~ Executive Director, Morgan Stanley
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Securities Litigation 2019: From Investigation to Trial (New York, NY) Apr. 1, 2019

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Securities Litigation 2018: From Investigation to Trial Jonathan K. Youngwood, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
Lyle Roberts, Cooley LLP
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.