Rebenstock v. Deloitte & Touche
District Court, E.D. Michigan
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DUGGAN, District Judge.
Before this Court are defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs 1 motion for partial summary judgment. The Court heard oral argument on these motions on August 18, 1995. Defendant (“Deloitte”) maintains that it is entitled to summary judgment because (1) plaintiffs securities fraud claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigro v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350, 111 S.Ct. 2773, 115 L.Ed.2d 321 (1991), and (2) the alleged misrepresentations made by Deloitte in the accounting sections of the prospectus and…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. GilbertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- In Re Worlds Of Wonder Securities LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Armstrong v. McAlpinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- W. Kenneth Tregenza, James E. Haas, and Erwin B. Seegers v. Great American Communications Company and Shearson Lehman Brothers, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
- R. Richard Bastian, III v. Petren Resources CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Havenick v. Network Express, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1997