Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page ABC Arbitrage v. Tchuruk, Civ. No. 01-40645, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 9112 (5th Cir. May 13, 2002) ............................37, 38, 39 AUSA Life Ins. Co. v. Dwyer, 928 F. Supp. 1239 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ..........................40 Aaron v. SEC, 446 U.S. 680 (1980) ..................................48 Abbott v. Equity Group, 2 F.3d 613 (5th Cir. 1993) ...............................98 Adair v. Bristol Tech. Sys., 179 F.R.D. 126 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ............................82 Adam v. Silicon Valley Bancshares, 884 F. Supp. 1398 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ..........................50 Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972) ................................43, 53 Allison v. Brooktree Corp., 999 F. Supp. 1342 (S.D. Cal. 1998) ..........................39 Anheuser-Busch Cos. v. Summit Coffee Co., 934 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. App. - Dallas 1996, writ dism'd) ............... 100 Barnes v. Osofsky, 373 F.2d 269 (2d Cir. 1967) ..............................82 Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988) ................................passim Berger v. Compaq, Civ. A. No. H-98-1148 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 1999) .................38, 45 Brown v. Cole, 155 Tex. 624, 291 S.W.2d 704 (1956) .........................99 Central Bank, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994) ................................passim Ceres Partners v. GEL Assoc., 918 F.2d 349 (2d Cir. 1990) ..............................47 Chartwell Healthcare v. People's Home Health, No. 3:96-CV-1938-G, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4659 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 1997) ...............................37 - v -
Page Chiarella v. United States, 445 U.S. 222 (1980) ..................................46 Christoffel v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 588 F.2d 665 (9th Cir. 1978) ..............................97 Coates v. Heartland Wireless Communs., Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 910 (N.D. Tex. 1998) .........................39 Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) ...................................35 Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................50, 82 Crescendo Invs., Inc. v. Brice, 61 S.W.3d 465 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 2001, pet. denied) ............ 102 Dau v. Cephalon, Inc., No. 99-CV-2439, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14534 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2000) ................................77 Dennis v. General Imaging, Inc., 918 F.2d 496 (5th Cir 1990) ..............................98 Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983) ..................................47 Epstein v. Itron, Inc., 993 F. Supp. 1314 (E.D. Wash. 1998) .......................55, 56 Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185 (1976) ................................48, 81 Escott v. Barchris Constr. Corp., 283 F. Supp. 643 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) ...........................96 Feldman v. Motorola, Inc., [1993 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 97,806 (N.D. Ill. 1993) ............................77 Fine v. American Solar King Corp., 919 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1990) ............................. 102 Finkel v. Docutel/Olivetti Corp., 817 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1987) ..............................49 First Interstate Bank, N.A. v. Pring, 969 F.2d 891 (10th Cir. 1992), rev'd on other grounds sub nom Central Bank, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994) ..................................97 - vi -
Page 1 and 2: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHE
Page 3 and 4: Page c. The Outside Directors Who S
Page 5: Page 5. Defendants Claim They Can A
Page 9 and 10: Page In re AST Research Sec. Litig.
Page 11 and 12: Page Krim v. BancTexas Group, 989 F
Page 13 and 14: Page Santa Fe Indus., Inc. v. Green
Page 15 and 16: Page LEGISLATIVE HISTORY H.R. Rep.
Page 17 and 18: in various elements of Enron's sche
Page 19 and 20: to generate 40% of the profits Enro
Page 21 and 22: • No other company offered such i
Page 23 and 24: of dollars to maintain its liquidit
Page 25 and 26: In fact, in mid-8/01, an Enron exec
Page 27 and 28: and course of business, that Enron'
Page 29 and 30: Investigations Subcommittee of the
Page 31 and 32: LJM's interest, Enron had agreed in
Page 33 and 34: fraudulent course of business by ap
Page 35 and 36: As stated above, the Board received
Page 37 and 38: deceptive device, J.P. Morgan and E
Page 39 and 40: e triggered, which would require En
Page 41 and 42: I realize that we have had a lot of
Page 43 and 44: Debt Amount of Understatement Share
Page 45 and 46: 100 90 80 Total Shares Sold By Defe
Page 47 and 48: year and make any recommendations t
Page 49 and 50: • Committee receives a document f
Page 51 and 52: 1996) (it is improper to isolate "t
Page 53 and 54: defendants' alleged securities frau
Page 55 and 56: The CC specifies precisely what sta
Page 57 and 58:
Date Statement Outside Director Sig
Page 59 and 60:
Robertson, 32 F. Supp. 2d. 443. The
Page 61 and 62:
facts that affect the validity or p
Page 63 and 64:
provides: deceptive device or contr
Page 65 and 66:
Id. at 363-64. Accord Heller v. Am.
Page 67 and 68:
The Court said: "[T]he text of the
Page 69 and 70:
3. The CC Alleges Facts Giving Rise
Page 71 and 72:
These actions alone are enough to d
Page 73 and 74:
would have resulted in a $0.4 milli
Page 75 and 76:
approval of them was necessary, and
Page 77 and 78:
These are distinct liability theori
Page 79 and 80:
Thus, Enron's Board had continuous
Page 81 and 82:
of a mere $13 million (an almost 10
Page 83 and 84:
is an issue of fact that is inappro
Page 85 and 86:
100 times those in prior periods. 4
Page 87 and 88:
a considerable number of shares aft
Page 89 and 90:
(g) Norman Blake Although Blake onl
Page 91 and 92:
This inquiry into contemporaneity p
Page 93 and 94:
puts and calls); see also Dau v. Ce
Page 95 and 96:
unequivocally hold Rule 9(b) does n
Page 97 and 98:
offending registration statement. S
Page 99 and 100:
arguments are nothing more than a c
Page 101 and 102:
occurred via the LJM2 partnership's
Page 103 and 104:
Enron provides premium broadband de
Page 105 and 106:
actually hedging with itself, not r
Page 107 and 108:
For example, the 00-01 Registration
Page 109 and 110:
illion as of 7/01. And, contrary to
Page 111 and 112:
also incorporated all documents fil
Page 113 and 114:
possession, direct or indirect, of
Page 115 and 116:
Anheuser-Busch Cos. v. Summit Coffe
Page 117 and 118:
made by the primary violator." Id.;
Page 119 and 120:
IV. Conclusion Accordingly, based o
show all

Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?