Legal Opinion
Axel Johnson, Inc. v. Arthur Andersen & Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided June 4, 1990No. 89 Civ. 6490(MEL)PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LASKER, District Judge.
Arthur Andersen & Co. (“Andersen”) moves to dismiss the securities fraud claim of the complaint for failure to plead fraud with particularity pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), to dismiss the common law claims on the grounds that they are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, and for a stay of discovery pending determination of the motion to dismiss.
This action arises out of various audits and financial reviews conducted by Andersen’s Michigan office for Industrial Tectonics, Inc. (“ITI”), a Michigan corporation, and Axel Johnson Inc. (“Johnson”), a New York…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,697 John P. Decker v. Massey-Ferguson, LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
- Beck v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Enco Associates, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Ouaknine v. MacFarlaneCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- Stewart v. RudnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Duke v. Touche Ross & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- Axel Johnson, Inc. v. Arthur Andersen & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- Shochat v. WeiszDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1991
- Ohio Farmers Insurance v. ShamieMichigan Court of Appeals · 2000
- Kaplin v. BuendiaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2021