§Why CasetextPricing

In Re Snap Inc. Securities Litigation

REPLY

11 Cited authorities

  1. Hevesi v. Citigroup Inc.

    366 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 141 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs fail to establish predominance requirement if they are not entitled to presumption of reliance

  2. In re Global Crossing

    313 F. Supp. 2d 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)   Cited 137 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 14 claims are time barred because all of the allegedly misleading proxy statements were issued more than three years before the lawsuit was filed

  3. In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc.

    191 F.R.D. 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)   Cited 113 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."

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

    862 F. Supp. 2d 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 40 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"

  5. In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation

    Case No. 5:13-cv-01920-EJD (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2016)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that common issues predominate notwithstanding defendants' challenge to Coffman's proposed "out-of-pocket" method

  6. Nelsen v. Konami Gaming, Inc.

    Case No. 2:17-cv-02248-APG-NJK (D. Nev. Dec. 11, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Case No. 2:17-cv-02248-APG-NJK 12-11-2017 COREY NELSEN, Plaintiff(s), v. KONAMI GAMING, INC., Defendant(s). NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge ORDER (Docket Nos. 20, 21) Pending before the Court is Defendant's renewed motion for protective order and to stay discovery. Docket Nos. 20, 21. That motion seeks an order allowing Defendant to delay or avoid the requirement to respond to discovery pending resolution of its motions seeking arbitration. That motion is targeted at, inter alia, relieving

  7. In re Twitter Inc. Sec. Litig.

    Case No. 16-cv-05314-JST (N.D. Cal. Jul. 16, 2018)

    Case No. 16-cv-05314-JST 07-16-2018 In Re TWITTER INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING CLASS CERTIFICATION, APPOINTMENT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES, AND APPROVAL OF CLASS COUNSEL Re: ECF No. 140 This is a securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Twitter common stock between February 6, 2015 and July 28, 2015 against Twitter and two of its officers for violations of §§ 10 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act

  8. Apple Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Company

    Case No.: CV 10-04145 JW (PSG) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2011)   Cited 4 times

    Case No.: CV 10-04145 JW (PSG). February 1, 2011 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (Re: Docket No. 15) PAUL GREWAL, Magistrate Judge On August 25, 2010, Plaintiff Apple Inc. ("Apple") filed this action against Defendant Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak") for breach of contract, conversion, unfair competition, and breach of confidence. On October 15, 2010, Apple served Kodak with interrogatories and a document production request. Kodak objected that the requests were premature in

  9. 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

  10. In re Neopharm, Inc. Securities Litigation

    02 C 2976 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 2004)   Cited 1 times

    02 C 2976 April 7, 2004 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOAN H. LEFKOW, District Judge This case is a putative class action brought against defendants, NeoPharm, Inc. ("NeoPharm"), James M. Huffey ("Huffey"), and Inram Ahmad ("Ahmad") (collectively "defendants"), alleging violations of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), Rule 10b-5 promulgated under § 78j(b), and § 20(a) of the Act, 18 U.S.C. § 78t(a). Before the court are two motions: (1) plaintiffs' motion

  11. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,712 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party