§Why CasetextPricing

Middlesex County Retirement System et al v. Semtech Corp. et al

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss Case of Plaintiff Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System as to Defendant John Baumann 57 , MOTION to Dismiss Case Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint 56 , MOTION to Dismiss Case 62

65 Cited authorities

  1. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,131 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

  2. Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo

    544 U.S. 336 (2005)   Cited 3,551 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”

  3. Basic Inc. v. Levinson

    485 U.S. 224 (1988)   Cited 3,348 times   307 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance

  4. Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.

    552 U.S. 148 (2008)   Cited 1,181 times   80 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the fraud-on-the-market presumption did not apply because business partners' "deceptive acts were not communicated to the public"

  5. Sparling v. Daou

    411 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 1,287 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that scienter is an element of § 10(b) claim

  6. Wool v. Tandem Computers Inc.

    818 F.2d 1433 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 2,036 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court could, at pleading stage, "presume" corporate officers who had "direct involvement . . . in [corporation's] financial statements" were responsible for misleading information contained in corporation's prospectus

  7. Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank

    465 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 662 times
    Holding that plaintiffs did not allege any extraordinary circumstances beyond their control that made filing timely "impossible"

  8. Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin, Jenrette

    845 A.2d 1031 (Del. 2004)   Cited 665 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a corporate stockholder who brings a direct action “must demonstratethat the duty breached was owed to the stockholder and that he or she can prevail without showing an injury to the corporation”

  9. No. 84 Employer-Teamster v. America W. Holding

    320 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 487 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the allegations must be considered in their totality in determining whether plaintiffs have met the PSLRA standard

  10. In re Scholastic Corp. Securities Litigation

    252 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 491 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that material decline in sales or earnings is information that must be disclosed

  11. Section 78j - Manipulative and deceptive devices

    15 U.S.C. § 78j   Cited 12,510 times   165 Legal Analyses
    Granting SEC power to establish rules to further statute forbidding manipulative or deceptive devices in connection with purchase or sale of securities

  12. Section 78t - Liability of controlling persons and persons who aid and abet violations

    15 U.S.C. § 78t   Cited 3,984 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any person "who, directly or indirectly, controls any person liable under any provision of this chapter or of any rule or regulation thereunder"

  13. Section 1658 - Time limitations on the commencement of civil actions arising under Acts of Congress

    28 U.S.C. § 1658   Cited 2,376 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the state-law tort period controls § 1983 actions

  14. Section 240.10b-5 - Employment of manipulative and deceptive devices

    17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5   Cited 9,201 times   134 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any person who "make any untrue statement of material fact"