Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

D.1
In re Thornburg Mortg., Inc. Sec. Litig., 2011 WL 2429189 (D.N.M. June 2, 2011).
Investors brought class action suit against mortgage company officers, alleging violations
of federal securities laws and defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim as required
under the heightened pleading standard of the PSLRA. The court granted officers’ motion,
finding that investors failed to allege that any material misstatements or omissions by officers
were made with scienter. The court found that certain statements made in official filings were
declared as mere puffery, and that the complaint did not attribute any wrongful conduct or
statements to individual officers.
Meyer v. St. Joe Company, 2011 WL 3750324 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2011).
Plaintiffs brought a class action suit against defendant company and several of its officers
alleging violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiffs alleged defendants intentionally deceived
investors about the value of certain properties located throughout Florida. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as required under the heightened pleading standards
of the PSLRA. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss finding that plaintiffs’ claims
of misrepresentation were insufficient to meet the standard of pleading fraud with particularity
because they failed to allege that defendants acted with the requisite scienter. Further, plaintiffs
failed to show defendants made statements that they knew were materially false at the time.
Additionally, Plaintiff failed to establish loss causation.
BCJJ, LLC v. Lefevre, 2011 WL 1296682 (M.D.Fla. Mar. 31, 2011).
Plaintiff brought suit against defendant for alleged violations of federal securities laws
and defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim as required under the heightened
pleading standard of the PSLRA. Plaintiff alleged that defendant solicited investment from
plaintiff and made several misleading and material statements regarding appraisal values, the
guarantee of the loan and other matters relating to the investment in property to be developed.
The court granted defendants’ motion, holding that the defendants expressly warned of the
potential for inaccuracies in the appraisal values and did not warrant the purchase agreement.
Further, the court found that the contract contained a merger clause, which made any prior
statements insufficient to show reliance.
D.1
D.1
174