Legal Opinion

In Re In-Store Advertising Securities Litigation

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided December 30, 1993No. 90 CIV. 5594 (KC)PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION and ORDER

CONBOY, District Judge:

Pending before the Court is the summary judgment motion of defendant KPMG Peat Marwick (“Peat Marwick”), which seeks to dismiss plaintiffs’ federal and state law securities fraud claims on the ground that they are time-barred. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted with respect to the federal claims and denied without prejudice with respect to the state law claims. 1

BACKGROUND

This case arises from the sale of common stock pursuant to a July 1990 Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) by a company called In-Store Advertising, Inc. (“In-Store”).…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. GilbertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Carter v. StantonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Michael Fonte and Gilda Fonte v. The Board of Managers of Continental Towers CondominiumCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
  4. Armstrong v. McalpinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
  5. Blue Sky L. Rep. P 71,223, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,220 Berry Petroleum Company, an Arkansas Corp. (Dissolved) v. Adams & PeckCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Fezzani v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2004
  2. Trustees of the American Federation of Musicians & Employers' Pension Fund v. Steven Scott Enterprises, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1999
  3. Rebenstock v. Deloitte & ToucheDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API