Legal Opinion

In Re Diasonics Securities Litigation

District Court, N.D. California

Decided September 21, 1984No. C-83-4584 RFPPublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

PECKHAM, Chief Judge.

This complex securities action involves numerous claims raised by various plaintiffs against Diasonics, Inc. (“Diasonics”), certain of its officers and directors (“individual defendants”), and the co-lead underwriters (F. Eberstadt & Co., Inc.; L.F. Rothschild, Unterberg, Towbin; and Hambrecht & Quist, Inc.) (“underwriters”). All defendants are alleged to have participated in the issuance of a materially misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus. The plaintiffs allege that as a result of materially misleading statements and omissions in these documents,…

2Cases cited47 opinions

  1. Ernst & Ernst v. HochfelderSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Cort v. AshSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Touche Ross & Co. v. RedingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. LewisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. In Re Convergent Technologies Securities LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1985
  2. Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply SystemWashington Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Bernard A. Schlifke and Harvey Kallick, D/B/A K & S Investments Co., a Partnership v. Seafirst Corp. And Seattle-First National BankCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989
  4. Adams v. ReaganCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1990
  5. Vinson v. Texas Commerce Bank-Houston, National Ass'n, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1994

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

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API