Legal Opinion
In Re Midlantic Corp. Shareholder Litigation
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided October 11, 1990No. Civ. 90-1275 (DRD)PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DEBEVOISE, District Judge.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) defendant Midlantic Corporation and individual defendants Van Burén, Peraino, Rishel, McDonald, Fox, Holman, Hough, and Lewis move to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Specifically, defendants claim that the causes of action alleged in plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended and Derivative Complaint (hereafter “Complaint”) sounding in fraud under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, have been pled with…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Cruz v. BetoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Superintendent of Insurance of New York v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Howard Wool v. Tandem Computers Incorporated, Robert C. Marshall, Henry v. Morgan, and James G. TreybigCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Shapiro v. UJB Financial Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Farmers & Merchants National Bank v. San Clemente Financial Group Securities, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1997
- Bracco Diagnostics Inc. v. Bergen Brunswig Drug Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2002
- In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Sales Practices LitigationDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1997
- In Re PSE & G Shareholder LitigationSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2002
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.