§Why CasetextPricing

In Re Snap Inc. Securities Litigation

RESPONSE

8 Cited authorities

  1. Hevesi v. Citigroup Inc.

    366 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 135 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs fail to establish predominance requirement if they are not entitled to presumption of reliance

  2. In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc.

    191 F.R.D. 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)   Cited 112 times
    Finding "[t]he Court believes on reflection that it probably has the power to designate a Class Representative under Rule 23 who is not a Lead Plaintiff, simply because there is nothing in the statute which prevents it."

  3. Fort Worth Employees' Ret. Fund v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

    862 F. Supp. 2d 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 39 times
    Rejecting tranche-based standing objections when "the allegations [in the complaint] address the general practices pertaining to the entire body of loans . . . . The fact that one tranche is backed by one sub-group of loans with particular interest rates, while another tranche is backed by another sub-group of loans with other interest rates, does not affect whether a plaintiff has the requisite 'personal stake' in establishing that particular underwriting practices pervaded the entire industry, and that descriptions of those underwriting practices in the Offering Documents were false and misleading"

  4. Endress v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc.

    278 F.R.D. 78 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)   Cited 14 times
    Finding "no prejudice inuring to the Defendants as a result of consolidation" and noting that "[t]his is further bolstered by the fact that there have been no objections to the Plaintiffs' requests for consolidation . . . in any of the cases"

  5. Johnson v. CBD Energy Ltd.

    CIVIL ACTION H-15-1668 (S.D. Tex. Jul. 6, 2016)   Cited 4 times

    CIVIL ACTION H-15-1668 07-06-2016 MICHAEL JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CBD ENERGY LIMITED, et al., Defendants. Gray H. Miller United States District Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court are three motions to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint filed by National Securities Corporation and Northland Securities (the "Underwriter Defendants") (Dkt. 45), Richard Pillinger (Dkt. 71), and PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia ("PwC Australia")

  6. In re Smith Barney Transfer Agent Litig.

    05 Civ. 7583 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2011)   Cited 3 times

    05 Civ. 7583 (WHP) 12-15-2011 In re: SMITH BARNEY TRANSFER AGENT LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS WILLIAM H. PAULEY III MEMORANDUM & ORDER WILLIAM H. PAULEY III, District Judge: Several plaintiffs in this putative class action and their attorneys move for appointment as new lead plaintiff and new lead counsel. Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants Smith Barney Management Limited, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., and Lewis Daidone under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange

  7. In re Smith Barney Transfer Agent Litig.

    823 F. Supp. 2d 202 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    No. 05 Civ. 7583 (WHP). 2011-09-22 In re: SMITH BARNEY TRANSFER AGENT LITIGATION.This Document Relates to: All Actions. Bernstein Liebhard, Joseph R. Seidman, Sandy A. Liebhard, Uri Seth Ottensoser, Gregory M. Egleston, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, James Elliot Lahm, Mark Levine, Stull Stull & Brody, Richard Adam Acocelli, Jr., Weiss & Lurie, Edward H. Glenn, Jr., Jacob H. Zamansky, Kevin Dugald Galbraith, Zamansky & Associates LLC, John Richard Stetson McFarlane, Joshua H. Vinik, Milberg LLP, New York

  8. Section 77z-1 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 77z-1   Cited 454 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Discussing "[t]otal attorneys' fees and expenses" that can be awarded by court