Legal Opinion
McNamara v. Bre-X Minerals Ltd.
District Court, E.D. Texas
Decided March 18, 1999No. 5-97CV-159PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
FOLSOM, District Judge.
Several Defendants in this action have filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). After considering the arguments of the parties, the Court finds that these motions are not well taken.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a securities fraud case. Seeking class certification, the named Plaintiffs are persons who purchased common stock of Bre-X Minerals Ltd. (“Bre-X”) and/or Bresea Resources Ltd. (“Bresea”) between January 17, 1994 and May 2, 1997. The Plaintiffs essentially allege that the Defendants made…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. James W. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1981
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- City Of Monroe Employees Retirement System v. Bridgestone CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
- In Re Royal Ahold N v. Securities & Erisa LitigationDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2004
- In Re CINAR Corp. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2002
- In Re Bann Co. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2003
- MFS Series Trust III Ex Rel. MFS Municipal High Income Fund v. GraingerUtah Supreme Court · 2004
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.