Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

disregarded and resulted in omissions and misrepresentations of certain figures to investors. The
court declined to reconsider, stating that the confidential witness testimony offered by plaintiff
supported the inference that the problems were pervasive problems and discussed by the
company prior to several of the statements alleged as misrepresentations and that even though
circumstantial, plaintiffs evidence alleged in complaint was sufficient to give rise to a strong
inference of scienter.
Brown v. Schwartzberg, 2011 WL 5599214 (M.D. La. Nov. 16, 2011).
Defendants brought a counter-complaint of fraud against plaintiff under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The court found that the allegations in defendant’s counter-complaint
were vague and lacking factual specificity as to particular misleading statements, information, or
misrepresentations and the source of said statements, information or misrepresentations and
therefore, failed generally and under the PSLRA to connect the allegations of fraud to any
specific statement, document or alleged fact. The court required defendants to amend their
counter-complaint to allege with specificity any claim pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
Wu v. Tang, 2011 WL 145259 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2011).
Plaintiffs brought class action suit against defendants alleging violations of federal
securities laws and defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim as required under the
heightened pleading requirements of the PSLRA. Plaintiffs claim that defendants operated a
Ponzi-like scheme targeting members of the Chinese-American community to obtain direct and
indirect investments in the Oversea China Fund and made material misrepresentations to deceive
plaintiffs and influence their decisions to invest. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss
finding that plaintiffs failed to sufficient particularize facts showing defendants made fraudulent
misrepresentations to investors. Further, the court found that plaintiffs failed to show specific
acts raising the requisite scienter and, similarly to the alleged misleading statements, relied on
over generalizations rather than specific statements or actions or other facts.
Hopson v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc., 2011 WL 1119727 (N.D.Tex. Mar. 25, 2011).
Plaintiff brought suit against defendants 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. Plaintiffs claimed losses sustained after purchasing shares of
defendant company’s stock at artificially inflated prices resulting from the defendants’ materially
false, misleading, and reckless statements and omissions regarding company’s business
prospects. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss finding that plaintiff had not pleaded
sufficient facts to support a strong inference of scienter and that even if plaintiff had adequately
D.1
D.1
D.1
151