Legal Opinion
Richelson v. Yost
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided September 9, 2010No. Civil Action 10-1342PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Amidst allegations of corporate misconduct and associated qui tam litigation, Plaintiff Maurice Richelson (“Plaintiff’) filed this derivative suit on behalf of nominal-defendant AmerisourceBergen Corporation (“AmerisourceBergen”). Plaintiff names as defendants several current and former directors and officers of AmerisourceBergen (“Defendants”), who move to dismiss the complaint under Rules 12(b)(6) and 23.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants also seek monetary sanctions under Rule 11 in the form of an award of…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Papasan v. AllainSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- In Re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation. P. Gregory Buchanan, Jacob Turner and Ronald AbramoffCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
- Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Simmonds v. Credit Suisse Securities LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Musaelian v. AdamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Shenk ex rel. Sirius XM Radio Inc. v. KarmazinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2011
- Chrystall ex rel. Serden Technologies, Inc. v. Serden TechnologiesDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2012
- Bountiful Capital, LLC v. Karen KaminskiDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2026
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.