§Why CasetextPricing

Burch et al v. SLM Corporation et al

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 20 MOTION to Appoint Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 80 Pension Trust Fund to serve as lead plaintiff

9 Cited authorities

  1. Kaplan v. Gelfond

    240 F.R.D. 88 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)   Cited 159 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff must be attorney in-fact and have ultimate decision-making power over managed funds to establish standing

  2. In re eSpeed, Inc. Securities Litigation

    232 F.R.D. 95 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)   Cited 139 times
    Holding that "a group of unrelated investors should not be considered as lead plaintiff when that group would displace the institutional investor preferred by the PSLRA"

  3. Smith v. Suprema Specialties, Inc.

    206 F. Supp. 2d 627 (D.N.J. 2002)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the group could not work effectively to adequately represent the interests of the class because the group "concede[d] that the only pre-existing relationship among the various proposed individuals [was] the fact that they all invested through the same broker"

  4. In re Bank One Shareholders Class Actions

    96 F. Supp. 2d 780 (N.D. Ill. 2000)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that an investment manager, a hedge fund, with the largest aggregate losses was not the most adequate plaintiff because, among other things, it was not buying the stock in question for its own account, but rather for investors who were participants in the managers' funds

  5. In re Safeguard Scientifics

    216 F.R.D. 577 (E.D. Pa. 2003)   Cited 35 times
    Holding defendant "presented compelling reason to rebut the reliance presumption," where defendant showed day trader plaintiff "increased his holdings in [defendant's] stock even after the public disclosure of the alleged fraud"

  6. IN RE TYCO INTERNATIONAL, LTD.

    236 F.R.D. 62 (D.N.H. 2006)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses

    MDL Docket No. 02-1335-B, All Cases. June 12, 2006 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PAUL BARBADORO, District Judge The lead plaintiffs in this securities fraud class action are former shareholders of Tyco International, Ltd. They assert securities fraud claims against Tyco, former Tyco executives and board members L. Dennis Kozlowski, Mark H. Swartz, Mark A. Belnick, Frank E. Walsh, Jr., Michael A. Ashcroft (the "individual defendants"), and Tyco's independent accountant and auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers ("PwC")

  7. Davidson v. Belcor, Inc.

    933 F.2d 603 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 12 times

    No. 89-1957. Argued April 2, 1990. Decided June 5, 1991. John S. Cole, Theodore T. Scudder, III, Alfieri, Abbene, Durkin Dailey, Elmhurst, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant. John L. Ropiequet, Kurt J. Heinz, Hal R. Morris, Arnstein Lehr, Richard H. Chapman, Floyd Babbitt, Fagel Haber, Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Before FLAUM and KANNE, Circuit Judges, and NOLAND, Senior District Judge. The Honorable James

  8. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 36,164 times   1252 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

  9. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,718 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party