46 Cited authorities

  1. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 6,945 times   100 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may consider documents incorporated into the complaint by reference when ruling on a 12(b) motion
  2. Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo

    544 U.S. 336 (2005)   Cited 3,057 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the securities statutes have a private of action “not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause”
  3. ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd.

    493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 3,118 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that deception occurs when "investors are misled to believe that prices at which they purchase and sell securities are determined by the natural interplay of supply and demand, not rigged by manipulators"
  4. Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green

    430 U.S. 462 (1977)   Cited 1,031 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Securities Exchange Act is limited in scope to its textual provisions and does not conflict with state law regarding corporate misconduct, particularly corporate mismanagement
  5. Novak v. Kasaks

    216 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 1,398 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding section 78u-4(b) does not literally require pleading of all facts, so long as facts pleaded provide adequate basis for believing statements were false
  6. Rombach v. Chang

    355 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,144 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that complaint may establish scienter through facts showing that defendants "had both motive and opportunity to commit fraud"
  7. Rothman v. Gregor

    220 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 1,202 times
    Holding that "the date of the filing of the motion to amend constitutes the date the action was commenced for statute of limitations purposes" when "the plaintiff seeks to add a new defendant" (quoting Nw. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Alberts , 769 F. Supp. 498, 510 (S.D.N.Y.1991) )
  8. Kramer v. Time Warner Inc.

    937 F.2d 767 (2d Cir. 1991)   Cited 1,664 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Court may consider matters of which judicial notice may be taken under Fed. R. Evid. 201
  9. Lentell v. Merrill Lynch Co., Inc.

    396 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 871 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to prove loss causation, a plaintiff must allege "that the misstatement or omission concealed something from the market that, when disclosed, negatively affected the value of the security"
  10. Ganino v. Citizens Utilities Co.

    228 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 863 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding on the basis of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 that "numerical benchmark" are informative but not the "exclusive" test
  11. Section 6 - Forfeiture of property in transit

    15 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 41 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Any property owned under any contract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section 1 of this title, and being in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to a foreign country, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law. 15 U.S.C. § 6 July 2