Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

D.1
Philco Investments, LTD., v. Martin, 2011 WL 4595247 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2011).
Plaintiffs brought suit against pharmaceutical company and several of its officers alleging
violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiffs alleged defendants made false and misleading
statements about the efficacy and safety of two of defendants’ drugs. The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a clam and the court granted their motion finding that
plaintiffs failed to adequately allege the violations pursuant to the heightened pleading standards
under the PSLRA for particularity of misrepresentations and omissions as well as scienter.
In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, 2011 WL 4831192 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011).
Plaintiffs brought suit against defendants for violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiffs alleged defendants were aware of a $150 million to $200 million charge against cost of
revenue to cover expenses arising from defective packaging prior to issuing a press release.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion to dismiss,
holding plaintiffs failed to plead the element of scienter as required under the heightened
pleadings standards of the PSLRA. The court found that the defendants’ response to the
defective products did not represent an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care in
the industry and did not support the conclusion that defendants acted with fraudulent intent or
deliberate recklessness.
In re Xenoport, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2011 WL 6153134 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2011).
Defendants moved to dismiss all claims asserted against them in plaintiff’s first amended
complaint for violation of various federal securities laws. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that
defendant misrepresented that a drug it produced had received similar results in toxicology
studies to an approved competitor drug currently on the market. In reality, the product had
actually been shown to potentially cause cancer in both male and female mice where the
competitor product had only shown carcinogenic effects in male mice. The court granted the
defendant’s motion to dismiss finding that, although defendant’s misleading statements were
pled with sufficient particularity and found to be misleading, the plaintiff did not plead scienter
sufficiently under the heightened standards of the PSLRA.
In re Immersion Corp. Sec. Litig., 2011 WL 6303389 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 16, 2011).
Plaintiff brought suit against defendants alleging violations of various federal securities
laws and defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff alleged that defendants prematurely and
D.1
D.1
D.1
164