Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

failed to adequately address whether the plaintiff properly plead each allegation with sufficient
particularly. On review, the court found that all of plaintiff’s claims, with the exception of one
misstatement, lacked sufficient particularity to meet the pleading standard. Further, for the
single misstatement that was adequate pled, plaintiff failed to plead reliance.
City of New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System v. Private Bancorp, Inc., 2011 WL 5374095
(N.D. Ill. Nov. 3, 2011).
Plaintiffs brought suit against defendants for violations of federal securities laws and
defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant, a
regional bank, concealed the deterioration of certain loans in its portfolio and falsely represented
its financial condition by knowingly and purposefully failing to write off $109 million in
defaulting loans. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and found that plaintiffs failed
to allege particularized facts sufficient to give rise to a strong inference that any of the
defendants acted with scienter or had knowledge of any purported credit losses that would merit
a write-down.
D.1
Antelis v. Freeman, 2011 WL 6009609 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2011).
Plaintiff brought suit against defendant alleging various violations of federal securities
laws. Plaintiff alleged that defendant made numerous material misrepresentations and concealed
material facts to induce plaintiff to make loans to an individual who subsequently went bankrupt.
As a result, plaintiff allegedly lost nearly all of his lifesavings. In particular, plaintiff alleged that
the company which guaranteed the notes was a shell corporation designed to defraud investors
with defendant’s assistance and that defendant received thousands of dollars in kickbacks and
other payments. The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff
had failed to plead scienter with the requisite particularity required under the heightened
standards of the PSLRA. The court found that, based on the allegations, it was just as likely that
defendant had also been defrauded because he had also lost $333,000. Further, the court fund
that the defendant was never actually paid the alleged kickbacks because payment was
contingent on repayment of the notes, which were never repaid.
Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 2011 WL
338865 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 28, 2011).
Plaintiffs brought a class action suit against defendants alleging violations of federal
securities laws based on the defendants’ alleged failure to disclose known complaints about a
company’s medical device. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim as required
under the heightened pleading requirements of the PSLRA. Allegedly, defendant corporation and
its officers were privy to doctors’ complaints about the medical device product and were required
to disclose such information. The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss finding that
D.1
D.1
156