§Why CasetextPricing

In Re: Security Capital Assurance Ltd. Securities Litigation

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 11 MOTION to Appoint HGK Asset Management Inc. to serve as lead plaintiff

14 Cited authorities

  1. In re Olsten Corp. Securities Litg.

    3 F. Supp. 2d 286 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)   Cited 162 times
    Consolidating cases with different, but overlapping, class periods

  2. In re Global Crossing

    313 F. Supp. 2d 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)   Cited 137 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 14 claims are time barred because all of the allegedly misleading proxy statements were issued more than three years before the lawsuit was filed

  3. Hevesi v. Citigroup Inc.

    366 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 135 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs fail to establish predominance requirement if they are not entitled to presumption of reliance

  4. Weinberg v. Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc.

    216 F.R.D. 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)   Cited 66 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting joint application of an individual investor and an institutional plaintiff because there is "no need to have them both as Lead Plaintiff"

  5. Aronson v. McKesson HBOC, Inc.

    79 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1999)   Cited 73 times
    Holding that a lead plaintiff movant that did not file the complaint did not have to file a certification

  6. Berwecky v. Bear, Stearns & Co.

    197 F.R.D. 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)   Cited 29 times
    Finding certain plaintiffs atypical and inadequate class representatives when they had engaged in post disclosure purchases

  7. In re Smith Barney Transfer Agent Litigation

    No. 05 Civ. 7583 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2006)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that the proposed lead plaintiffs "certification complied with the PSLRA's requirements," even though "the certification indicates that [the representative] signed in December 2005," "a more precise date [was not] needed, and th[e] Court sees no reason to invalidate the certification on such grounds."

  8. BROWN v. BIOGEN IDEC, INC.

    Civil Action Nos. 05-10400-RCL, 05-10453-RCL, 05-10801-RCL (D. Mass. Jul. 26, 2005)   Cited 1 times

    Civil Action Nos. 05-10400-RCL, 05-10453-RCL, 05-10801-RCL. July 26, 2005 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION OF ROCHELLE LOBEL FOR CONSOLIDATION, APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO § 21d(a)(3)(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF LEAD COUNSEL (DOCKET ENTRY # 13); MOTION OF THE BIOGEN INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR GROUP FOR CONSOLIDATION, APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF, AND APPROVAL OF SELECTION OF LEAD PLAINTIFF'S SELECTION OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND LIAISON COUNSEL (DOCKET

  9. In re Delphi Corp. Securities, Derivative Erisa

    458 F. Supp. 2d 455 (E.D. Mich. 2006)

    MDL No. 1725, E.D. Mich. No. 05-1725. October 17, 2006. OPINION AND ORDER VACATING THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA COURT'S JULY 20, 2005 ORDER APPOINTING LEAD PLAINTIFF AND CO-LEAD COUNSEL ROSEN, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION The above-captioned matter is before the Court pursuant to the December 12, 2005 Transfer Order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Transfer Order") which transferred to this Court seven securities fraud and shareholder derivative actions that were

  10. In re Neopharm, Inc. Securities Litigation

    02 C 2976 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 2004)   Cited 1 times

    02 C 2976 April 7, 2004 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOAN H. LEFKOW, District Judge This case is a putative class action brought against defendants, NeoPharm, Inc. ("NeoPharm"), James M. Huffey ("Huffey"), and Inram Ahmad ("Ahmad") (collectively "defendants"), alleging violations of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), Rule 10b-5 promulgated under § 78j(b), and § 20(a) of the Act, 18 U.S.C. § 78t(a). Before the court are two motions: (1) plaintiffs' motion

  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 35,072 times   1237 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"

  12. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,489 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

  13. Section 77z-1 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 77z-1   Cited 454 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Discussing "[t]otal attorneys' fees and expenses" that can be awarded by court

  14. Section 42-46-6 - Notice

    R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6   Cited 17 times
    Stating that nothing contained in that "notice" section shall be used to circumvent the spirit and requirements of the chapter