§Why CasetextPricing

Singh v. Yuhe International, Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 17 MOTION to Appoint Counsel Rosen Law Firm P.A.. MOTION to Appoint Lead Plaintiff., 20 MOTION to Appoint MRMP-MANAGERS LLC to serve as lead plaintiff

13 Cited authorities

  1. Herman MacLean v. Huddleston

    459 U.S. 375 (1983)   Cited 1,328 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an express remedy under § 11 of the 1933 Act for misleading registration statements did not preclude an overlapping implied private cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation under § 10(b) of the 1934 Act

  2. In re Cavanaugh

    306 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 365 times
    Holding that that options traders can satisfy the typicality requirement and serve as a lead plaintiff

  3. Kaplan v. Gelfond

    240 F.R.D. 88 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)   Cited 159 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff must be attorney in-fact and have ultimate decision-making power over managed funds to establish standing

  4. In re eSpeed, Inc. Securities Litigation

    232 F.R.D. 95 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)   Cited 139 times
    Holding that "a group of unrelated investors should not be considered as lead plaintiff when that group would displace the institutional investor preferred by the PSLRA"

  5. Constance Sczesny Trust v. KPMG LLP

    223 F.R.D. 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)   Cited 80 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,"

  6. In re Indymac Mortg.-Backed Sec. Litig.

    718 F. Supp. 2d 495 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)   Cited 66 times
    Holding Wyoming only had standing to pursue Section 12 claims as to INDX 2006-AR11

  7. Glauser v. EVCI Center Colleges Holding Corp.

    236 F.R.D. 190 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)   Cited 66 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding typicality where proposed lead plaintiff " like all class members" purchased the securities at issue during the proposed class period at prices allegedly artificially inflated by the defendants' false and misleading statements or omissions and suffered damage thereby

  8. In re Fuwei Films Securities Litigation

    247 F.R.D. 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)   Cited 61 times
    Setting forth elements of the Lax test

  9. In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Securities Litigation

    226 F.R.D. 298 (S.D. Ohio 2005)   Cited 44 times
    Finding movant subject to a unique defense because it purchased its shares after the company's public disclosures of investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York into the company's accounting methods

  10. In re Veeco Instruments, Inc.

    233 F.R.D. 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)   Cited 32 times
    Concluding that FIFO is "the appropriate methodology . . . for the purpose of considering the financial stake of the movant for lead plaintiff status"

  11. Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 78u-4   Cited 7,717 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

  12. Section 77k - Civil liabilities on account of false registration statement

    15 U.S.C. § 77k   Cited 2,144 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable for a false registration statement "every person who was a director of . . . or partner in the issuer" at time of filing

  13. Section 77z-1 - Private securities litigation

    15 U.S.C. § 77z-1   Cited 467 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Discussing "[t]otal attorneys' fees and expenses" that can be awarded by court