§Why CasetextPricing

Lynn M. Kennis Trust U/A DTD 10/02/2002 et al v. First Eagle Investment Management LLC

REPLY BRIEF re MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

21 Cited authorities

  1. In re Burlington Coat Factory

    114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997)   Cited 7,622 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may consider a "document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint" when deciding a motion to dismiss

  2. Migdal v. Rowe Price-Fleming Intern., Inc.

    248 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2001)   Cited 689 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “Rule 12(b) requires more than the mere recitation of boilerplate statutory language”

  3. Jones v. Harris Associates

    559 U.S. 335 (2010)   Cited 87 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that deference is due where a board's process “for negotiating and reviewing investment-adviser compensation is robust”

  4. City of Edinburgh Council for the Lothian Pension Fund v. Pfizer, Inc.

    754 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2014)   Cited 146 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding at the motion to dismiss stage that the adjective "spectacular" was a vague and general statement of optimism that was not misleading

  5. Krantz v. Prudential Investments Fund Mgmt

    305 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2002)   Cited 199 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend for a second time where the plaintiff was on notice of the deficiencies in his complaint and failed to correct them in the first amended complaint

  6. Amron v. Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc.

    464 F.3d 338 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 136 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in opposing a motion to dismiss, "bald assertions and conclusions of law will not suffice"

  7. Pension Trust Fund for Operating Eng'rs v. Mortg. Asset Securitization Transactions, Inc.

    730 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2013)   Cited 80 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding Merck applies to both the Exchange Act and Securities Act

  8. Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management

    694 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1982)   Cited 152 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "price charged by other similar advisers to funds managed by them" is not the principal factor in evaluating fee's fairness, while noting "[w]e do not suggest that rates charged by other advisers to other similar funds are not a factor to be taken into account"

  9. Hoffman v. Ubs-Ag

    591 F. Supp. 2d 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)   Cited 39 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring securities claims relating to funds that plaintiffs did not own

  10. Krinsk v. Fund Asset Management, Inc.

    875 F.2d 404 (2d Cir. 1989)   Cited 64 times
    Affirming the district court's finding that economies of scale could not be inferred merely from the fact that the ratio of expenses to revenues declined at a time when the at-issue fund grew in size