Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

company but engaged in deceptive practices to artificially inflate the company’s financial results
and stock prices. Defendants moved to dismiss all counts for failure to state a claim under the
heightened pleading requirements of the PSLRA. The court denied certain defendants’ motions
to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that those defendants elected to
issue misstatements and omitted statements with knowledge that the information was misleading
and would likely impact the market. The court granted other defendants’ motions to dismiss for
failure to allege any facts upon which it could be shown that those defendants acted with the
requisite scienter.
D.1
Fulton Bank, N.A. v. UBS Securities, LLC, 2011 WL 5386376 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2011).
Plaintiff brought suit against defendants alleging violations of Pennsylvania state
securities laws in connection with its purchase and retention of various auction rate securities
(“ARS”) in auctions that the defendants managed. The court granted the defendant’s motion to
dismiss and found that, given the lack of determining state case law, that an analysis identical to
federal securities law violations of Section 12(b) and Rule 12b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 was appropriate. Under this analysis, the court held that plaintiff failed to sufficiently
allege many required elements under the heightened pleading standards of the PSLRA. The
court found that loss causation was difficult to prove given the surrounding market wide
phenomenon causing comparable losses to other investors. The court also found that plaintiff
failed to allege with reliance with requisite particularity.
D.1
In re Conventry Healthcare, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2011 WL 1230998 (D.Md. Mar. 30,
2011).
Plaintiffs brought class action suit against defendant health insurance corporation and
many of its officers allege alleging violations of federal securities laws and 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 in part and denied it in part
finding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead that certain statements alleged were intentionally
misleading and failed to plead sufficient facts that other statements made prior were made with
knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard to their falsity but that two statements pleaded
were actionable under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
In re Coventry Healthcare, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2011 WL 3880431 (D. Md. Aug. 30,
2011).
Plaintiffs brought suit against defendants alleging violations of federal securities laws.
Defendants requested reconsideration of the court’s prior decision to deny certain motions for
dismissal in relation to certain alleged statements and certain defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that
defendants failed to disclose problems they were incurring with the roll-out of a new Private-
Fee-For-Services healthcare plan product and that such difficulties were known or recklessly
D.1
150