In re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Securities Litig.

98 Citing briefs

  1. FTC Capital GMBH et al v. Credit Suisse Group AG et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 143 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 111 Order,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MARCH 29, 2013 ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS.. Document

    Filed September 20, 2013

    A court should disregard “[c]onflicting pleadings that make no sense, or that would ren- der a claim incoherent, or that are contradicted either by statements in the complaint itself or by documents upon which its pleadings rely, or by facts of which the court may take judicial no- tice.” In re Livent, 151 F. Supp. 2d at 405-06; see also, e.g., Kuriakose v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 897 F. Supp. 2d 168, 185 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (concluding that a scienter theory “de- 10 See also Declaration of David E. Kovel in Support of the Exchange-Based Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s August 23, 2013 Memorandum and Order, at ¶ 3 (asserting that Plaintiff 303030 Trading LLC sold two net futures contracts on March 20, 2006, and, on December 20, 2006, both bought and sold net futures con- tracts); Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Reconsideration, at 5 (Dkt.

  2. In re: Barclays Bank Plc Securities Litigation

    REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: [44] MOTION to Dismiss Counts I And II Of The Consolidated Amended Complaint.. Document

    Filed August 3, 2010

    Thus, because Ettin indisputably had knowledge of the alleged "untruths or omissions" at the time he purchased the Series 5 Securities, Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims regarding the April 2008 Offering of those securities should be dismissed. See Livent, 151 F. Supp. 2d at 441; see also, e.g., In re Am. Int'l Group, Inc. Sec.

  3. In re: Barclays Bank Plc Securities Litigation

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: [44] MOTION to Dismiss Counts I And II Of The Consolidated Amended Complaint.. Document

    Filed April 19, 2010

    Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims regarding the April 2008 Offering of Series 5 Securities should, therefore, be dismissed. See Livent, 151 F. Supp. 2d at 441 (dismissing Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) claims because plaintiffs were aware, prior to purchasing notes, that the registration statement contained misstatements); see also, e.g., In re Am. Int'l Group, Inc. Sec.

  4. Omega Advisors, Inc. et al v. Lewis

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 107 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint.. Document

    Filed April 5, 2010

    In re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Sec. Litig., 151 F. Supp. 2d at 405-06; see also American Centennial Ins. Co. v. Seguros La Republica, S.A., No. 91 Civ. 1235, 1996 WL 304436, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 1996) (“Allegations are not well pleaded if they are „made indefinite or erroneous by other allegations in the same complaint[, or] ... are contrary to facts of which the Court will take judicial notice.‟

  5. Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 344 MOTION to Dismiss Second Consolidated Amended Complaint.. Document

    Filed December 22, 2009

    11 C. The SCAC Does Not Allege Culpable Participation In order to state a claim under section 20(a), Plaintiffs must allege facts demonstrating that CGL was in some meaningful sense a culpable participant in the alleged fraud. See In re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Sec. Litig., 151 F. Supp. 2d at 416 (holding that culpable participation is a necessary pleading requirement for a section 20(a) claim). Because the PSLRA’s heightened pleading requirements apply, in order to plead culpable participation Plaintiffs must plead with particularity “facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the requisite state of mind,” i.e., scienter.

  6. Hollander v. Institute for Research on Women & Gender at Columbia University et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 25 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint.. Document

    Filed January 9, 2009

    Thus, the Court may reject out of hand Plaintiffs’ allegations detailing the Department’s supposed “delegation of [its] accreditation powers to the Regents, which the Regents, with [the Department’s] knowledge, use to approve [Department] funds to support Columbia University’s Women’s Studies Department,” Am. Compl. ¶ 20, as “contrary to facts of which the Court will take judicial notice,” In re Livent, 151 F. Supp. 2d at 406 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Moreover, regardless of which entity accredited Columbia, the Department is not responsible for the acts of a private (or state) accreditation organization simply because it conditions participation in certain grant and loan programs on such accreditation.

  7. Brown et al v. Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 16 MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint. . Document

    Filed January 25, 2016

    Such conclusory allegations do not satisfy the enhanced standards of the PSLRA. Livent, 151 F. Supp. 2d at 417. Accordingly, the securities claims against the Cerberus Defendants must be dismissed.

  8. Gusinsky v. Barclays PLC et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 61 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.. Document

    Filed March 1, 2013

    In fact, Mr. del Missier testified that he believed the instruction that Barclays lower its LIBOR submissions emanated from the Bank of England—not from Mr. Diamond.26 Moreover, the Settlements upon which Plaintiffs rely reflect the version of events contained in Mr. del Missier’s actual testimony and not Plaintiffs’ distorted pleadings.27 Because Plaintiffs’ allegation is premised on a mischaracterization of the public record, that allegation should be rejected. In re Livent, 151 F. Supp. 2d at 405-06, 427 (according no weight to allegations “contradicted by the very public [documents] on which [plaintiffs] rely”). 26 See Ex.

  9. United States of America v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 40 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.. Document

    Filed August 6, 2012

    And the Court is not required to “accept as truth conflicting pleadings that make no sense, or that would render a claim incoherent, or that are contradicted either by statements in the complaint itself or by documents upon which its pleadings rely, or by facts of which the court may take judicial notice.” Livent, 151 F. Supp. 2d at 405-06; see also Amidax Trading Grp. v. S.W.I.F.T. SCRL, 671 F.3d 140, 147 (2d Cir. 2011) (“[W]here a conclusory allegation in the complaint is contradicted by a document attached to the complaint, the document controls and the allegation is not accepted as true.”)

  10. McIntire v. China Media Express Holdings, Inc.

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 91 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended and Consolidated Complaint.. Document

    Filed February 6, 2012

    Sys. of Detroit v. Safenet, Inc., 645 F. Supp. 2d 210, 241 (S.D.NY. 2009) (dismissing Section 20(a) claim for failure to plead culpable participation where plaintiff could not show that defendants “had any significant knowledge or role” in the alleged malfeasance); In re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Sec. Litig., 151 F. Supp. 2d at 436-37 (finding that culpable participation element was not satisfied because plaintiffs did not allege that outside directors participated in the fraudulent transactions at issue).9 Finally, plaintiffs’ allegations that simply lump DTTL and DTT HK together, see, e.g., ¶¶ 4, 6-8, cannot satisfy their pleading obligations. See CLAL Finance Batucha Inv.