14 Cited authorities

In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.
960 F.2d 285 (2d Cir. 1992) Cited 686 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that Shutts did not require opt-out rights in a Rule 23(b)(B) class action because the plaintiffs had already submitted to the district court's jurisdiction by filing bankruptcy claims against the defendant
Kaplan v. Gelfond
240 F.R.D. 88 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 158 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff must be attorney in-fact and have ultimate decision-making power over managed funds to establish standing
Huber v. Casablanca Ind., Inc.
506 U.S. 1088 (1993) Cited 65 times
No. 90-1092. January 25, 1993, October TERM, 1992. Dismissal Under Rule 46 C.A. 3d Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court's Rule 46. Reported below: 916 F. 2d 85.
Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits Trust v. LaBranche & Co., Inc.
229 F.R.D. 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) Cited 141 times
Holding that the "experience of a candidate" is "relevant to reaching a determination as to whether a candidate will be capable of adequately protecting the interests of the class"
Hevesi v. Citigroup Inc.
366 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2004) Cited 139 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs fail to establish predominance requirement if they are not entitled to presumption of reliance
Constance Sczesny Trust v. KPMG LLP
223 F.R.D. 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) Cited 79 times
Rejecting appointment of a "niche" lead plaintiff because "option investors and shareholders are not sufficiently differentiated" where options holders alleged that "defendants made affirmative misrepresentations in [their] public securities filings,"
Weinberg v. Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc.
216 F.R.D. 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) Cited 69 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"
In re Fuwei Films Securities Litigation
247 F.R.D. 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) Cited 58 times
Setting forth elements of the Lax test
Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Ben. Plan v. Bank of America Corp.
275 F.R.D. 187 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) Cited 23 times
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] David Avi Rosenfeld, Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (LI), Melville, NY, for Plaintiff. Jay B. Kasner, Scott D. Musoff, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (N.Y.C.), New York, NY, for Defendants. MEMORANDUM & ORDER WILLIAM H. PAULEY III, District Judge: Plaintiffs in these actions bring claims against Bank of America (" BofA" ) under the federal securities laws on behalf of themselves and as members of a purported class of purchasers of BofA
Bensley v. FalconStor Software, Inc.
277 F.R.D. 231 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) Cited 21 times
Holding that "the Fund has failed to demonstrate that it will be an adequate lead plaintiff because it was a total in-and-out trader and may be unable to demonstrate loss causation"
Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 Cited 50,129 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,573 times 1241 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"
Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 Cited 7,592 times 52 Legal Analyses
Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

Peters v. Jinkosolar Holding Co., Ltd. et al

14 Cited authorities

Holding that Shutts did not require opt-out rights in a Rule 23(b)(B) class action because the plaintiffs had already submitted to the district court's jurisdiction by filing bankruptcy claims against the defendant

Holding that plaintiff must be attorney in-fact and have ultimate decision-making power over managed funds to establish standing

Holding that the "experience of a candidate" is "relevant to reaching a determination as to whether a candidate will be capable of adequately protecting the interests of the class"

Holding that plaintiffs fail to establish predominance requirement if they are not entitled to presumption of reliance

Rejecting appointment of a "niche" lead plaintiff because "option investors and shareholders are not sufficiently differentiated" where options holders alleged that "defendants made affirmative misrepresentations in [their] public securities filings,"

Rejecting joint application of an individual investor and an institutional plaintiff because there is "no need to have them both as Lead Plaintiff"

Setting forth elements of the Lax test

Holding that "the Fund has failed to demonstrate that it will be an adequate lead plaintiff because it was a total in-and-out trader and may be unable to demonstrate loss causation"

Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

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"

Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party