§Why CasetextPricing

Alexandru Lefter v. Yirendai Ltd. et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Notice Of Motion And Motion To Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws

44 Cited authorities

  1. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,542 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

  2. Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo

    544 U.S. 336 (2005)   Cited 3,630 times   67 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. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano

    563 U.S. 2011 (2011)   Cited 1,440 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs had adequately pled a Rule 10b–5 claim—where defendant had disputed the sufficiency of the allegations with respect to the elements of scienter and materiality—by alleging that defendant had forestalled a stock price drop by making affirmative statements confirming the market's impression that defendant's leading product was safe, despite defendant's awareness of evidence suggesting a significant risk that the nasal spray led to loss of sense of smell; when the risk was finally (belatedly) disclosed, the stock price plummeted

  4. Basic Inc. v. Levinson

    485 U.S. 224 (1988)   Cited 3,415 times   313 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance

  5. Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.

    552 U.S. 148 (2008)   Cited 1,218 times   80 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the fraud-on-the-market presumption did not apply because business partners' "deceptive acts were not communicated to the public"

  6. Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.

    552 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 1,404 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "for individual defendants' stock sales to raise an inference of scienter, plaintiffs must provide a 'meaningful trading history' for purposes of comparison to the stock sales within the class period," and that "[e]ven if the defendant's trading history is simply not available, for reasons beyond a plaintiff's control, the plaintiff is not excused from pleading the relevant history"

  7. In re Silicon Graphics Inc.

    183 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,448 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that stock sales of individual defendants are only indicative of scienter where they are "dramatically out of line with prior trading practices" (quoting In re Apple Computer Sec. Litig., 886 F.2d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 1989))

  8. Metzler v. Corinthian

    540 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 966 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs failed to plead loss causation where plaintiffs' theory was that "Corinthian's fraud was revealed to the market, causing Metzler's losses" but "[t]he TAC does not allege that the June 24 and August 2 announcements disclosed—or even suggested—[the fraudulent activities] to the market"

  9. Cutera Securities Litigation v. Conners

    610 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 493 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "statements fall outside the safe harbor if the plaintiff can allege facts that would create a strong inference that the defendants made the [statements] at issue with ‘actual knowledge ... that the statement was false or misleading’ "

  10. Ronconi v. Larkin

    253 F.3d 423 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 521 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that complaint did not sufficiently plead falsity where it alleged that defendant made false statements about earnings and sales expectations and that defendant stated that plan to cut jobs and costs was “on track,” but complaint did not allege facts showing that defendant knew at the time that the predictions were inaccurate

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 361,353 times   960 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 163,831 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  13. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 94,788 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

  14. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 40,114 times   335 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  15. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,730 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

  16. Section 229.503 - (Item 503) Prospectus summary

    17 C.F.R. § 229.503   Cited 76 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Requiring disclosure of "the most significant factors that make the offering speculative or risky"