Legal Opinion
McNamara v. Bre-X Minerals Ltd.
District Court, E.D. Texas
Decided July 13, 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 under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b). The motions of the following Defendants are well taken: Barrick Gold Corporation (“Barrick”); Lehman Brothers Inc. (“Lehman”); J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. (“J.P.Morgan”); and Nesbitt Burns Inc. (“Nesbitt”). Also well taken are the motions of the following Defendants (collectively referred to as the “Kilborn Defendants”): P.T. Kilborn Pakar Rekayasa (“P.T.Kilborn”); Kilborn Engineering Pacific Ltd. (“Kilborn Engineering”); SNC-Lavalin Inc.…
2Cases cited64 opinions
- Ernst & Ernst v. HochfelderSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-FonsecaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc., C/o Ct Corporation Systems Registered AgentCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Basic Inc. v. LevinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & ERISA Lit.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2002
- Freudenberg v. E Trade Financial Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2010
- In Re Securities Litigation BMC Software, Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2001
- In Re Theragenics Corp. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 2000
- In Re Lernout & Hauspie Securities LitigationDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2002
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.