§Why CasetextPricing

Securities And Exchange Commission v. Mercury Interactive LLC et al

MOTION to Dismiss the Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Claims for Relief Alleged in the First Amended Complaint Pursuant to F.R.CP. § 12

44 Cited authorities

  1. Landgraf v. USI Film Prods.

    511 U.S. 244 (1994)   Cited 3,812 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a statute may apply retroactively when "clear congressional intent favor such a result"

  2. Cort v. Ash

    422 U.S. 66 (1975)   Cited 3,056 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding no private action under criminal statutes absent clear statutory basis for such inference

  3. TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.

    426 U.S. 438 (1976)   Cited 2,486 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Holding that materiality may be resolved at summary judgment "if the established omissions are so obviously important to an investor that reasonable minds cannot differ on the question of materiality"

  4. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA

    317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 4,229 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Rule 9(b) pleading standards apply to California CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims because, though fraud is not an essential element of those statutes, a plaintiff alleges a fraudulent course of conduct as the basis of those claims

  5. In re Glenfed, Inc. Securities Litigation

    42 F.3d 1541 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 1,716 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs may not "merely proclaim in the most conclusory of fashion that the defendants made false statements."

  6. Wool v. Tandem Computers Inc.

    818 F.2d 1433 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 2,042 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. J. I. Case Co. v. Borak

    377 U.S. 426 (1964)   Cited 1,106 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “a right of action [under Section 14(a) ] exists as to both derivative and direct causes”

  8. Cooper v. Pickett

    122 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 1,243 times
    Holding that where complaint asserting claims of improper revenue recognition identified some of the defrauded customers, the type of conduct, the general time frame, and why the conduct was fraudulent, it was "not fatal to the complaint that it [did] not describe in detail a single specific transaction . . . by customer, amount, and precise method"

  9. IN RE STAC ELECTRONICS SECURITIES LITIGATION

    89 F.3d 1399 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 804 times
    Holding securities section 11 claims sounding in fraud are subject to Rule 9(b) particularity requirements

  10. Semegen v. Weidner

    780 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 1,002 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations must be "specific enough to give defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged so that they can defend against the charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong"

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 348,708 times   930 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 39,131 times   321 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  13. Section 78p - Directors, officers, and principal stockholders

    15 U.S.C. § 78p   Cited 866 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that information obtained by a director could be used in his capacity as a shareholder

  14. Section 7243 - Forfeiture of certain bonuses and profits

    15 U.S.C. § 7243   Cited 71 times   8 Legal Analyses

    (a) Additional compensation prior to noncompliance with Commission financial reporting requirements If an issuer is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to the material noncompliance of the issuer, as a result of misconduct, with any financial reporting requirement under the securities laws, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the issuer shall reimburse the issuer for- (1) any bonus or other incentive-based or equity-based compensation received by that person from

  15. Section 240.16a-3 - Reporting transactions and holdings

    17 C.F.R. § 240.16a-3   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a Form 4 filing upon changes of beneficial ownership