Legal Opinion
Axel Johnson, Inc. v. Arthur Andersen & Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 25, 1992No. 89 Civ. 6490(MEL)PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LASKER, District Judge.
Axel Johnson, Inc. moves under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) for relief from the dismissal of its securities fraud complaint against Arthur Andersen & Co. Its earlier suit was dismissed as time-barred under the Supreme Court’s decision in Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 2773, 115 L.Ed.2d 321 (1991). Lampf established a new uniform statute of limitations for actions pursuant to § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (1988), of one year from the date of discovery with a maximum three year period of repose, and,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. GilbertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Chase Securities Corp. v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Gray v. First Winthrop Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Axel Johnson Inc. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., United States of America, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- Niel v. GRONDAHL, Appellant, v. MERRITT & HARRIS, INC., Elliott “Buzz” Harris, III, Charles J. Seidler, Jr. and Lane & Mittendorf, AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
- Adler v. Berg Harmon AssociatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1992
- Brown v. Hutton GroupDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1992
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.