Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend finding that, out of nineteen alleged
misstatements, plaintiffs had failed to allege any such dramatically false statement that would
merit the inference of scienter. Further, plaintiff had thus far failed to adequately allege even a
single misrepresentation or omission with respect to any individual corporate officer.
Applestein v. Medivation, Inc., 2011 WL 3651149 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2011).
Lead plaintiff brought a securities class action against defendant company and several of
its senior officers alleging violations of federal securities laws. Defendants moved 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 with leave for plaintiff to amend, finding that each
of plaintiffs’ allegations were insufficient to give strong inference of scienter and, even
collectively, the allegations were insufficient to meet the threshold for a showing of scienter.
Curry v. Hansen Medical, Inc., 2011 WL 3741238 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2011).
Shareholders brought suit against medical company and its officers for violations of
federal securities laws and defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim as required
under the heightened pleading standards required under the PSLRA. Plaintiffs alleged that
defendants induced them to acquire common stock at artificially inflated prices during certain
class periods by making knowing and intentional misstatements regarding the company’s
revenue recognition and sales performance. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss
with leave to amend finding that plaintiffs failed to allege fraud with sufficient particularity.
Lapiner v. Camtek, Ltd., 2011 WL 3861840 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2011).
Plaintiffs 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. Plaintiffs alleged defendants engaged in a systematic scheme
to inflate the price of certain stock by publishing false and materially inflated reports of
revenues, earnings, cash flow from operations and days sales outstanding that omitted relevant
developments. Purportedly, defendants failed to disclose their sale of accounts receivables,
cashing in of letters of credit and various other unreported activities. The court granted
defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs failed to identify materially misleading
statements or omissions by the defendant after giving plaintiffs repeated opportunities to amend.
The court also noted that, though not required to be addressed, plaintiff failed to remedy
previously found deficiencies in loss causation and scienter as well.
D.1
D.1
D.1
163