The Eleventh Circuit entered an order granting en banc review in Ledford v. Peeples. In addition to published opinions from the Georgia courts, the case has two prior published opinions in the Eleventh Circuit which can be found at the following links: Ledford v. Peeples, 568 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2009); amended in part on rehearing 605 F.3d 871 (11th Cir. 2010); vacated by order granting en banc review - F.3d - (11th Cir. Jan. 19, 2011). On rehearing, the Court described the first opinion as follows:
In our original disposition of the appeal and cross-appeal in this federal securities fraud case, Ledford v. Peeples, 568 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2009), we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims on summary judgment and reversed the court’s refusal to grant the defendants sanctions against plaintiffs’ attorneys under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, directing that sanctions be imposed by the district court on remand. Plaintiffs have petitioned the court for rehearing, contending that we applied the wrong standard in reviewing the district court’s sanctions decision and erred in mandating that sanctions be imposed. After considering the plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing and the parties’subsequent submissions, we grant the petition in part and deny it in part.
The second opinion, the now vacated opinion on rehearing, stated:
For the reasons set out herein, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We AFFIRM the district court’s sanctions order to the extent that it denies PSLRA sanctions against plaintiffs. We VACATE the sanctions order regarding the imposition of sanctions against plaintiffs’ attorneys, however, and REMAND the case with the following instructions: (1) the court shall impose sanctions against plaintiffs’ attorneys for filing and prosecuting the Count One claims on behalf of co-plaintiffs; and (2) the court shall determine whether plaintiffs’ attorneys should be sanctioned for filing and prosecuting the Count One Rule 10b-5(a) and (b) and 20(a) claims on behalf of DynaVision in accordance with part VI of this opinion.