Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

D.1
Fosbre v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., 2011 WL 3705023 (D. Nev. Aug. 24, 2011).
Investors brought class action suit against defendants for 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 that during the class period,
defendants knowingly and recklessly made misrepresentations and omissions about the
company, its development plans, and its financial condition. The court granted the motion in part
and denied the motion in part, finding that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that most false
statements of material fact or omissions of material fact created a strong inference of scienter.
The court further found that the allegations sufficiently plead loss causation.
In re Cell Therapeutics, Inc. Class Action Litigation, 2011 WL 444676 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 4,
2011).
Plaintiff 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 alleged certain statements by
defendants that a drug product had been agreed to be fast-tracked by the FDA, when in fact the
FDA had not agreed to defendants’ modifications of the study and was unaware at the time they
were taken. The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss finding that plaintiffs’ alleged
sufficient evidence that, in the totality, passed the threshold of a strong inference of scienter.
Further, plaintiffs adequately pled loss causation with evidence of decrease in stock prices
directly after release of the corrective disclosures.
In re Coinstar Inc. Securities Litigation, 2011 WL 4712206 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 6, 2011).
Plaintiff brought suit against defendants for violations of the federal securities laws.
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to disclose various adverse business developments and
risks that allegedly caused it to have to finally report a revenue shortfall and accounting
correction. Defendants moved to dismiss and the court granted in part and denied in part. The
court found that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead many of defendants’ statements with the
requisite particularity required under the PSLRA, but that several were adequately pled as false.
In addition, the court found that plaintiffs adequately pled scienter by alleging defendants’ knew
of on-going business challenges and still made strong financial forecasts despite such
knowledge.
D.1
D.1
172