Legal Opinion
Ravens v. Iftikar
District Court, N.D. California
Decided January 7, 1997No. Nos. C-96-1224-VRW, C-96-1926-VRWPublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
WALKER, District Judge.
These actions are subject to the amendments of the federal securities laws, enacted in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “Reform Act” or “Act”), Pub. L. No. 104-67, 109 Stat. 737. By this enactment, Congress sought to remedy major flaws in private securities litigation. Senate Rep. No. 104-98, 104th Cong., 1st Sess., 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 679. The principal flaw Congress perceived was the disproportionate influence lawyers have exerted over securities class actions:
The initiative for filing 10b-5 suits comes almost entirely from lawyers, not…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Basic Inc. v. LevinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. ShuttsSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Chill v. Green Tree Financial Corp.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1998
- In re Party City Securities LitigationDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1999
- Takeda v. Turbodyne Technologies, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 1999
- McKitty v. Advanced Tissue Sciences, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1998
- Griffin v. PaineWebber Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2000
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.