Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

D.1
Egan v. Tradingscreen, Inc., 2011 WL 4344067 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2011).
Plaintiff brought suit against defendant for violation of federal securities laws. Defendant
filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the heightened pleading standards
required by the PSLRA. Plaintiff alleged that defendants made various misrepresentations to
him concerning his purchases of stock options and the terms and conditions of his employment.
The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss finding that the plaintiff’s amended complaint
failed to adequately allege a strong inference of scienter in relation to the alleged
misrepresentations.
380544 Canada, Inc. v. Aspen Technology, Inc., 2011 WL 4089876 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2011).
Plaintiffs brought suit against defendants alleging violations of federal securities laws.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as required under the heightened
pleading standards of the PSLRA. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, even upon
finding that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the particularity requirement because their allegations
never specified any of the individuals making the alleged misrepresentations at meetings the
plaintiffs attended. The court also held that plaintiffs failed to link each individual defendant to a
specific fraudulent statement in any meaningful way.
City of Monroe Employees’ Retirement System v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., 2011
WL 4357368 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2011).
Plaintiff investors brought suit against defendants alleging violations of federal securities
laws and defendants filed motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as required under the
heightened pleading standards of the PSLRA. The court granted defendants’ motion finding that
plaintiffs complaint did not include a single allegation of a self-interested motive or opportunity
by any individual whose statements were challenged. The court reasoned that plaintiffs, instead
based their entire complaint on a unilateral, and ultimately unsupported, interpretation of the
defendants’ insurance filing.
In re Sec. Capital Assur. Ltd. Sec. Litig., 2011 WL 4444206 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2011).
Plaintiffs brought suit against defendants alleging violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claimed defendants issued misstatements relating to certain credit scores used to
delineate subprime loans as well as assertions of utilizing a distinct internal model for assessing
the risks of subprime exposure. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim finding that plaintiff’s amended complaint continued to fail to adequately plead loss
D.1
D.1
D.1
141