§Why CasetextPricing

Repex Ventures S.A v. Madoff et al

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 41 MOTION to Appoint Repex Ventures S.A. to serve as lead plaintiff

18 Cited authorities

  1. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor

    521 U.S. 591 (1997)   Cited 7,115 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval

  2. In re Cavanaugh

    306 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 360 times
    Holding that that options traders can satisfy the typicality requirement and serve as a lead plaintiff

  3. Hevesi v. Citigroup Inc.

    366 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 140 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs fail to establish predominance requirement if they are not entitled to presumption of reliance

  4. Ontario Public Service Emp. v. Nortel Networks

    369 F.3d 27 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 67 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs who purchased the securities of a company that did not make the misstatements at issue did not have standing to sue, even if they purchased securities in a company that had a close business relationship with that company

  5. Greebel v. FTP Software, Inc.

    939 F. Supp. 57 (D. Mass. 1996)   Cited 72 times
    Holding that only named plaintiffs, rather than all parties moving for appointment as lead plaintiff, need comply with the certification requirement

  6. In re Prudential Securities Inc. Ltd. Partnerships Litigation

    163 F.R.D. 200 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)   Cited 72 times
    Granting class certification

  7. 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

  8. Werner v. Satterlee, Stephens, Burke

    797 F. Supp. 1196 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)   Cited 62 times
    Finding that consolidation was appropriate even though not all facts in original case applied to the defendants in second case

  9. In re Equity Funding Corp. of America Securities Litigation

    416 F. Supp. 161 (C.D. Cal. 1976)   Cited 88 times
    Concluding that court was not precluded from considering amendments to pleadings once the actions had been transferred by the JPML

  10. Sofran v. LaBranche & Co., Inc.

    220 F.R.D. 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)   Cited 31 times
    Rejecting the argument that because the proposed lead plaintiff was not the beneficial owner of the shares that it could not serve as an adequate lead plaintiff

  11. Section 78j - Manipulative and deceptive devices

    15 U.S.C. § 78j   Cited 12,732 times   166 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. Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 42   Cited 9,555 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."

  13. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,679 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

  14. Section 21 - Enforcement provisions

    15 U.S.C. § 21   Cited 245 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting the Commission authority to enforce section 7 of the Clayton Act

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

    17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5   Cited 9,352 times   136 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any person who "make any untrue statement of material fact"