Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

D.1
Jacquemyns v. Spartan Mullen Et Cie, S.A., 2011 WL 348452 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2011).
Plaintiffs brought suit against defendants alleging violations of federal securities laws.
Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim as required under the heightened
pleading requirements of the PSLRA. Plaintiffs alleged money damages based on defendants’
offer and sale of a fraudulent investment scheme that resulted in the misappropriation of
plaintiffs’ investment. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss finding that plaintiffs
failed to plead securities fraud with the requisite particularity.
In re Citigroup, Inc., 2011 WL 744745 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2011).
Plaintiff brought a class action suit against defendants alleging violations of federal
securities laws. Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as required
under the heightened pleading standards of the PSLRA. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants
mislead participants concerning defendants’ intervention in the auction-rate-securities (“ARS”)
market giving a misleading picture of the market’s stability. The court granted defendants’
motion to dismiss finding that plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts in order to demonstrate
that defendants’ conduct was deceptive. Plaintiffs also failed to prove that they reasonably relied
on any of the alleged misleading impressions, given that defendants’ policies regarding
participation in the markets were publicly posted and available to plaintiffs.
Fried v. Lehman Brothers Real Estate Associates III, L.P., 2011 WL 1345097 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.
29, 2011).
Plaintiffs brought suit against defendants alleging violations of federal securities laws.
Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as required under
the heightened pleading standards of the PSLRA. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants omitted
material information in its investment prospectus, and related documents regarding the risks and
use of the investment entities as a vehicle to dispose of over-valued assets to losses. The court
granted defendants’ motion to dismiss finding that plaintiffs failed to plead facts supporting an
inference of scienter with the required specificity and failed to allege that defendants knew or
should have known that certain properties being transferred had sustained losses with the
requisite specificity.
D.1
D.1
137