Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

D.1
Henning v. Orient Paper, Inc., 2011 WL 2909322 (C.D. Cal. July 20, 2011).
Plaintiffs brought suit against defendant 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 defendant company and several of its
officers issued an annual report containing false and misleading financial statements. The court
denied defendants’ motion to dismiss finding that plaintiffs met their burden under the PSLRA,
pled their claim with sufficient particularity, and created a strong inference of scienter.
Kexuan Yao v. Crisnic Fund, S.A., 2011 WL 3818406 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011).
Plaintiff brought suit against defendant for violations of federal securities laws and
defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to the heightened pleading
standards required under the PSLRA. Plaintiff alleged that he was deceived into a stock
transaction by defendants’ misrepresentations. The court granted the defendants’ motion to
dismiss finding that plaintiff failed to allege facts that suggested the misrepresentations stated by
plaintiff were made by defendant and relied upon by plaintiff.
In re China Education Alliance, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2011 WL 4978483 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2011).
Plaintiffs brought suit against defendants alleging violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants overstated revenues and profits and fraudulently maintained
two sets of books, one an accurate set of financial statements filed with Chinese regulators and
the other a false set of financial statements filed with the SEC. Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs’ complaint failed the heightened pleading standards under
the PSLRA because plaintiffs’ evidence was a supporting report that was anonymous, and that
there was no evidence of scienter presented. The court denied the motion to dismiss on the
grounds that the reliability of the report was a question of fact and that plaintiffs had adequately
alleged scienter.
Nguyen v. Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124631 (C.D. Cal. Oct.
26, 2011).
Plaintiffs brought action against pharmaceuticals company for alleged violations of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, plaintiffs
alleged that defendant made intentionally misleading statements about a partnership with the
prestigious Mayo Clinic in testing their star product, which defendant capitalized upon in a
D.1
D.1
D.1
167