In re Advanta Corp. Securities Litigation

58 Citing briefs

  1. Curran v. Freshpet, Inc. et al

    BRIEF in Support

    Filed May 26, 2017

    Because Plaintiff has failed to plead a claim under Section 10(b), its derivative claim under Section 20(a) against the Individual Defendants must also fail. See Advanta, 180 F.3d at 541 (“claims under Section 20(a) are derivative, requiring proof of a separate underlying violation of the Exchange Act.”).

  2. Martinez v. Toll et al

    MOTION to Dismiss the Consolidated Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint

    Filed December 14, 2009

    Given that they retained such a significant percentage of their holdings, the Outside Directors had “every incentive” to keep Toll Brothers profitable. Cf. Advanta, 180 F.3d at 541. As the Third Circuit has noted: As a general matter, . . . causing temporary inflations of price through the dissemination of false information hurts the long-term stock price of the company and thereby presumably hurts managerial compensation that may be tied to the long-term performance of the company . . . because these disseminations of false information (that are eventually discovered by the market) increase the volatility of the company’s stock and in turn increase its risk.

  3. Reid v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss Consolidated [Amended] Class Action Complaint

    Filed March 26, 2010

    This scienter standard requires plaintiffs to allege facts giving rise to a “strong inference” of “either reckless or conscious behavior.” Avaya, 564 F.3d at 267 (quoting Advanta, 180 F.3d at 534-35). The PSLRA requirement that the plaintiff plead with particularity facts giving rise to a “strong inference” of scienter requires courts to weigh the “plausible nonculpable explanations for the defendant’s conduct” against the “inferences favoring the plaintiff.”

  4. Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund v. Kenexa Corporation et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint

    Filed February 1, 2010

    Plaintiffs Allege Actual Knowledge of Adverse Facts that Rendered Their Forecasts Misleading No amount of cautionary language insulates statements made with actual knowledge of their falsity or misleading nature: “[T]he safe harbor will not apply if the statement was made with „actual knowledge‟ that the statement was false or misleading.” Advanta, 180 F.3d at 536; see also Gargiulo v. Demartino, 527 F. Supp. 2d 384, 389 (E.D. Pa. 2007). “In other words, the safe harbor provision does not afford corporations a free pass to lie to investors.

  5. Anderson v. Stonemor Partners, L.P. et al

    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

    Filed June 8, 2017

    CIV.A. 06- 1467, 2007 WL 2306586, at *17 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2007); see also Advanta, 180 F.3d 525, 539 (“[A]llegations that a securities-fraud defendant, because of his position within the company, must have known a statement was false or misleading are precisely the types of inferences which [courts], on numerous occasions, have determined to be inadequate to withstand Rule 9(b) scrutiny.”) (citation omitted).

  6. SUN v. HAN et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition

    Filed November 17, 2015

    Sec. Litig., 397 F. Supp. 2d 575, 587 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (quoting Advanta, 180 F.3d at 534) (“Allowing scienter to be established through recklessness ‘promotes the policy objectives of discouraging deliberate ignorance and preventing defendants from escaping liability solely because of the difficulty of proving conscious intent to commit fraud.’”).

  7. RATZ v. PHOTOMEDEX, INC. et al

    Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the 19 MOTION to Dismiss The Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws

    Filed July 14, 2014

    Section 78u-4(b)(1) adds an additional requirement where “‘an allegation regarding [a defendant’s] statement or omission is made on information -18- and belief.’” Id., quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(1)(B). In those circumstances, plaintiffs must also “state with particularity all facts on which that belief is formed.” Id., quoting Advanta, 180 F.3d at 538. Thus, when allegations are made on information and belief, the complaint “must state the allegations with factual particularity,” and also “describe the sources of information with particularity, providing the who, what, when, where and how of the sources, as well as the who, what, when, where and how of the information those sources convey.” Id. As discussed below, Lead Plaintiff’s allegations of the falsity of Defendants’ statements comply with the PSLRA’s pleading requirements.

  8. Bauer v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

    REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion

    Filed March 1, 2017

    (Opp. 33.) Such modest divestiture does not suggest fraud. See, e.g., Advanta, 180 F.3d at 540 (sales of “only” 7% of defendant’s holdings did not support scienter); Cozzarelli, 549 F.3d at 628 (“modest to de minimis” sales of 13%, 12%, and 3% did not support scienter); Sapir, 2016 WL 554581, at *13 (sales of 5.9% did not support scienter).

  9. Blue v. Doral Financial Corporation et al

    Memorandum in Opposition to Motion

    Filed February 6, 2015

    ¶¶104, other sales were indicative of scienter. 180 F.3d at 540. The court further held that where insider sales were unusual compared to past practice – as is the case here – such sales may be probative of scienter.

  10. Bricklayers and Masons Local Union No. 5 Ohio Pension Fund v. Transocean Ltd. et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 41 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint

    Filed June 6, 2011

    Advanta, 180 F.3d at 539. Although Plaintiffs allege the individual Defendants had “access” to the alleged truth, they fail to specify the reports or statements that contained this information.