Legal Opinion
Griffin v. PaineWebber Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided February 14, 2000No. 99 CIV. 2292(RWS)PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
Defendants Garth A. Drabinsky (“Dra-binsky”), Myron Gottlieb (“Gottlieb”), Robert Topol (“Topol”), Thomas H. Lee (“Lee”), PaineWebber Inc. (“Paine-Webber”), Furman Selz (“Selz”), CIBC Wood Gundy Securities Corp. (“CIBC”), and Deloitte & Touche Canada (“D & T”), have moved to dismiss this action, pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, Drabinsky, Gottlieb, Topol, and D & T move to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are granted in part and denied in part.
The…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Mills v. Polar Molecular Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- Pinter v. DahlSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. HerrmannCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- Dannenberg v. PaineWebber Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Shapiro v. UJB Financial Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Rombach v. ChangCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004
- Rombach v. ChangCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004
- In Re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Securities Litig.District Court, S.D. New York · 2001
- Employers-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust Fund v. Anchor Capital AdvisorsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- In Re Global Crossing, Ltd. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2003
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.