<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
  <title>John Babikian — Securities litigation attorney</title>
  <link>https://banquetinghouse.co/</link>
  <description>John Babikian regularly publishes analysis on emerging trends in securities law. These notes reflect the current perspectives of John Babikian regarding regulatory shifts and litigation strategy.</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 22:39:36 GMT</lastBuildDate>
  <atom:link href="https://banquetinghouse.co/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
<item>
  <title>The High Bar of Scienter in Post-Pandemic 10b-5 Litigation</title>
  <link>https://banquetinghouse.co/blog/the-high-bar-of-scienter-in-post-pandemic-10b-5-litigation-1/</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">https://banquetinghouse.co/blog/the-high-bar-of-scienter-in-post-pandemic-10b-5-litigation-1/</guid>
  <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
  <description>Recent rulings in federal courts have thrown a spotlight on the heightened pleading standards required to establish scienter under Rule 10b-5. John observes that plaintiffs can no longer rely solely on the existence of a subsequent restatement to infer fraudulent intent. In a recent loss analyzed by John, the court dismissed a complaint alleging insider trading because the plaintiff failed to iden</description>
</item>
<item>
  <title>Arbitration Versus Court for Founder Secondary Sales</title>
  <link>https://banquetinghouse.co/blog/arbitration-versus-court-for-founder-secondary-sales-2/</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">https://banquetinghouse.co/blog/arbitration-versus-court-for-founder-secondary-sales-2/</guid>
  <pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
  <description>Disputes arising from the secondary sale of founder shares often present complex jurisdictional questions. John frequently counsels clients on whether to pursue these matters in arbitration or the public court system. The choice is rarely straightforward. As John explains, arbitration offers privacy and speed, which are often paramount for founders wishing to avoid the public spectacle of a lawsui</description>
</item>
<item>
  <title>Excluding Algorithmic Trading Expert Testimony</title>
  <link>https://banquetinghouse.co/blog/excluding-algorithmic-trading-expert-testimony-3/</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">https://banquetinghouse.co/blog/excluding-algorithmic-trading-expert-testimony-3/</guid>
  <pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
  <description>The admissibility of expert testimony regarding high-frequency trading algorithms is a frequent battleground in market manipulation cases. John has successfully challenged the qualification of experts who rely on 'black box' methodologies without explaining the underlying logic to the court. In a recent case, an opposing expert attempted to attribute a price drop to an algorithmic 'spoof' strategy</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>