§Why CasetextPricing

Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 719 Pension Trust Fund v. Conseco, Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 29 MOTION to Dismiss The Corrected Second Amended Complaint in it's Entirety and with Prejudice. Document

52 Cited authorities

  1. Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights

    551 U.S. 308 (2007)   Cited 9,087 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

  2. Basic Inc. v. Levinson

    485 U.S. 224 (1988)   Cited 3,343 times   307 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance

  3. In re Burlington Coat Factory

    114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997)   Cited 7,620 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

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

    493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 3,872 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"

  5. Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green

    430 U.S. 462 (1977)   Cited 1,063 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Securities Exchange Act is limited in scope to its textual provisions and does not conflict with state law regarding corporate misconduct, particularly corporate mismanagement

  6. Novak v. Kasaks

    216 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 1,596 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

  7. ECA & Local 134 Ibew Joint Pension Trust v. Jp Morgan Chase Co.

    553 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 908 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements that the defendant "'set the standard' for 'integrity' and that it would 'continue to reposition and strengthen [its] franchises with a focus on financial discipline'" were nonactionable puffery given their generality

  8. Lentell v. Merrill Lynch Co., Inc.

    396 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 997 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to prove loss causation, a plaintiff must allege "that the misstatement or omission concealed something from the market that, when disclosed, negatively affected the value of the security"

  9. Acito v. Imcera Group, Inc.

    47 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 1995)   Cited 1,130 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that selling stock, by itself, insufficient to plead scienter, absent allegations that "stock sales were 'unusual'"

  10. Kalnit v. Eichler

    264 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 843 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a complaint “does not present facts indicating a clear duty to disclose” it does not establish “ strong evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness”

  11. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 38,849 times   316 Legal Analyses
    Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"

  12. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,446 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

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

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-5   Cited 1,257 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"