Legal Opinion

Smith v. OPPENHEIMER FUNDS DISTRIBUTOR, INC.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided June 6, 2011No. 10 Civ. 7387(LBS), 10 Civ. 7394(LBS)PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

SAND, District Judge.

Plaintiff Bradley C. Smith brings two actions under the Investment Company Act (“ICA”), 15 U.S.C. § 80a-l et seq. Plaintiff brings two actions: 10 Civ. 7394 derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Oppenheimer Gold & Special Minerals Fund (the “Gold action”), and 10 Civ. 7387 derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Oppenheimer Quest for Value Funds (the “Quest action”). In each of these actions, Plaintiff raises four claims: (1) a claim under Section 47(b) of the ICA; (2) a claim under Massachusetts state law of breach of contract; (3) a…

2Cases cited24 opinions

Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
Alexander v. SandovalSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007

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

3Cited by1 opinion

Oxford University Bank v. Lansuppe Feeder, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019