§Why CasetextPricing

Glaser v. The9, Ltd. et al

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 35 MOTION to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.. Document

80 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 252,626 times   279 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 266,542 times   365 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

  3. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,121 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

  4. Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo

    544 U.S. 336 (2005)   Cited 3,550 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”

  5. ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd.

    493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 3,874 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"

  6. In re Gilead Sciences

    536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 2,902 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court need not accept as true "allegations that are merely conclusory"

  7. Herman MacLean v. Huddleston

    459 U.S. 375 (1983)   Cited 1,311 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an express remedy under § 11 of the 1933 Act for misleading registration statements did not preclude an overlapping implied private cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation under § 10(b) of the 1934 Act

  8. Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc.

    565 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009)   Cited 2,079 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that warnings "d[id] not qualify as meaningful cautionary language" because they "did not disclose that defendants knew from past experience that the [risks] posed an imminent threat of business and financial ruin and that some damage from these risks had already materialized"

  9. Virginia Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg

    501 U.S. 1083 (1991)   Cited 609 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 14 liability may not be established on "mere disbelief or undisclosed motive without any demonstration that the proxy statement was false or misleading"

  10. Novak v. Kasaks

    216 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 1,597 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

  11. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,464 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

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

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-5   Cited 1,258 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Noting that under the statutory safe harbor, a defendant may avoid liability for any forward-looking statement that is false or misleading if the statement is "identified as a forward-looking statement, and is accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statement"