Legal Opinion
In Re In-Store Advertising Securities Litigation
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided February 22, 1995No. 90 Civ. 5594 (PKL)PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
LEISURE, District Judge:
This action arises from the sale of common stock by In-Store Advertising Co. (“In-Store”). Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of persons who purchased In-Store common stock. There are three groups of original defendants (the “defendants”), and KPMG Peat Marwick (“Peat Marwick”) was brought into the instant action, as an additional defendant, in July 1998. Peat Mar-wick now moves this Court for an order dismissing or severing defendants’ cross-claims and dismissing plaintiffs’ state law fraud claim for failure to comply with Rules 8 and 9(b) of the…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Landis v. North American Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Herman & MacLean v. HuddlestonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Sarah B. Shields, Individually and as Representative of All Others Similarly Situated v. Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., George F. Taylor and Irwin EngelmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- Mills v. Polar Molecular Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Rombach v. ChangCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004
- Rombach v. ChangCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004
- In Re Initial Public Offering Securities LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2003
- In Re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Securities Litig.District Court, S.D. New York · 2001
- In Re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2000
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.