§Why CasetextPricing

Brown v. Biogen Idec Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Dismiss The Consolidated Class Action Complaint

29 Cited authorities

  1. Securities & Exchange Commission v. First Jersey Securities, Inc.

    101 F.3d 1450 (2d Cir. 1996)   Cited 1,256 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that owner-officer who collaborated in unlawful conduct of firm may be held jointly and severally liable with firm for disgorgement of unlawful gains received

  2. Greebel v. FTP Software, Inc.

    194 F.3d 185 (1st Cir. 1999)   Cited 524 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiffs' failure to provide information regarding sales made by insiders at times outside the class period permitted no possibility of comparison

  3. Arruda v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

    310 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2002)   Cited 161 times
    Holding plaintiff to this standard in a bankruptcy action

  4. Maldonado v. Dominguez

    137 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998)   Cited 182 times
    Holding that there is a "strong presumption" against finding an implied right of action in a statute

  5. In re Stone Webster, Inc., Securities Litig

    414 F.3d 187 (1st Cir. 2005)   Cited 147 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that forward-looking statements are not fraudulent even if later found to be inaccurate, when they are accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying information that may cause results to differ materially from statements

  6. Ezra Charitable Trust v. Tyco International, Ltd.

    466 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2006)   Cited 78 times
    Providing standard under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)

  7. In re Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.

    431 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2005)   Cited 52 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding "although [stock] ratings are based to some degree on objective facts, they ultimately convey an opinion about a stock's prospects"

  8. Royal Business Group, Inc. v. Realist, Inc.

    933 F.2d 1056 (1st Cir. 1991)   Cited 79 times
    Determining that, where plaintiff never took advantage of Rule 15 amendment as of right, despite being on notice that its claims were being challenged as insufficient, and where plaintiff never sought to reopen judgment in district court, a request to the appellate court for remand in order to amend was untimely

  9. Fitzer v. Security Dynamics Technologies, Inc.

    119 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D. Mass. 2000)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that the PSLRA's requirements were met where the plaintiff identified the source of her information as including former employees "who handled returns," or were "in the technical support department" or were "responsible for strategic planning"

  10. Wietschner v. Monterey Pasta Co.

    No. C 03-0632 MJJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2003)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that “documents crucial to the plaintiff's claims but not explicitly incorporated in a complaint can be noticed in order to prevent a plaintiff from surviving a Rule 12(b) motion by deliberately omitting references to documents on which their claims are based”

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 162,144 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 39,889 times   331 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  13. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,667 times   52 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

  14. Section 78a - Short title

    15 U.S.C. § 78a   Cited 1,740 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Emphasizing considerations of federalism in SLUSA's legislative findings

  15. Section 78u-5 - Application of safe harbor for forward-looking statements

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-5   Cited 1,297 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Listing as an exclusion from the safe harbor "forward-looking statement in connection with a going private transaction"

  16. Section 240.10b5-1 - Trading "on the basis of" material nonpublic information in insider trading cases

    17 C.F.R. § 240.10b5-1   Cited 40 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Stating that it is an affirmative defense in insider trading cases that the defendant's purchases or sales were made pursuant to a “written plan for trading securities”

  17. Section 312.32 - IND safety reporting

    21 C.F.R. § 312.32   Cited 33 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Giving FDA regulatory flexibility in demanding interim safety reports

  18. Section 312.20 - Requirement for an IND

    21 C.F.R. § 312.20   Cited 24 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a) A sponsor shall submit an IND to FDA if the sponsor intends to conduct a clinical investigation with an investigational new drug that is subject to § 312.2(a) . (b) A sponsor shall not begin a clinical investigation subject to § 312.2(a) until the investigation is subject to an IND which is in effect in accordance with § 312.40 . (c) A sponsor shall submit a separate IND for any clinical investigation involving an exception from informed consent under § 50.24 of this chapter. Such a clinical

  19. Section 312.50 - General responsibilities of sponsors

    21 C.F.R. § 312.50   Cited 14 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Concerning the content and format of NDAs

  20. Section 312.22 - General principles of the IND submission

    21 C.F.R. § 312.22   Cited 2 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) FDA's primary objectives in reviewing an IND are, in all phases of the investigation, to assure the safety and rights of subjects, and, in Phase 2 and 3, to help assure that the quality of the scientific evaluation of drugs is adequate to permit an evaluation of the drug's effectiveness and safety. Therefore, although FDA's review of Phase 1 submissions will focus on assessing the safety of Phase 1 investigations, FDA's review of Phases 2 and 3 submissions will also include an assessment of the