§Why CasetextPricing

United Food and Commercial Workers Union et al v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation et al

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint

10 Cited authorities

  1. Pinter v. Dahl

    486 U.S. 622 (1988)   Cited 877 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that only a statutory "seller" may be liable under § 12 of Securities Act

  2. In re Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation

    294 F. Supp. 2d 392 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)   Cited 162 times
    Holding that the lead plaintiff, a stockholder, had standing to assert Section 11 claims on behalf of investors in WorldCom's note offerings where "claims addressed specifically to the [note] offerings rely on the same course of conduct that underlies the claims addressed more generally to WorldCom's securities . . . ."

  3. In re Countrywide Financial Corp. Securities Litigation

    588 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (C.D. Cal. 2008)   Cited 109 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding complaint persuasively alleges that "systematic changes in Countrywide came from the top down and pervaded virtually every office" because directors and officers allegedly were regularly provided "detailed exception statistics"

  4. In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities Erisa Litig

    351 F. Supp. 2d 334 (D. Md. 2004)   Cited 66 times
    Denying motion to strike allegations about similar fraudulent schemes at the parent company's other subsidiaries

  5. In re Am. Bk. N. Holographics, Inc. Securities Litigation

    93 F. Supp. 2d 424 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)   Cited 64 times
    Holding underwriters to be sellers where the putative class consisted of investors who acquired shares in the initial public offering

  6. Capri v. Murphy

    856 F.2d 473 (2d Cir. 1988)   Cited 77 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that plaintiffs could state a Section 12 claim against partners who “contemplated and authorized” a transaction

  7. In re Portal Software, Inc. Securities Litigation

    No C-03-5138 VRW (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2006)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No C-03-5138 VRW. August 17, 2006 ORDER VAUGHN WALKER, District Judge Plaintiffs John Romeo and Pipefitters Local 522 633 Pension Trust Fund ("Pipefitters") sue under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "'33 Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "'34 Act") on behalf of investors who purchased securities of Portal Software, Inc, between May 20, 2003, and November 13, 2003, inclusive (the "class period"). Plaintiffs allege that defendants Portal, John E Little, Howard A Bain III and Arthur

  8. In re OPUS36O Corp. Securities Litigation

    Master File No. 01 Civ. 2938 (JGK) (JCF) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2002)   Cited 2 times
    Dismissing Section 12 claims because plaintiffs failed to allege that defendants actually solicited the shares that they purchased

  9. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 163,831 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  10. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 40,114 times   335 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity