Judge: Investors Failed To Plead Falsity With Requisite Specificity

Title	Views
1	Dodd-Frank Law Sets New Rules for Compensation Consultants, Counsel and Other Advisers	10730
2	How Far Can the Plaintiffs Really Go With the Cases Against U.S.-Listed Chinese Companies?	9465
3	D & J Tire Inc. v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Co, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 4156 (5th Cir. February 26, 2010)	6355

Title

Views

Dodd-Frank Law Sets New Rules for Compensation Consultants, Counsel and Other Advisers

10730

How Far Can the Plaintiffs Really Go With the Cases Against U.S.-Listed Chinese Companies?

9465

D & J Tire Inc. v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Co, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 4156 (5th Cir. February 26, 2010)

6355

Title	Downl.
1	The Dodd-Frank Act, Commentary and Insights by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Associates--Chapter1: Orderly Liquidation Authority	24
2	The Dodd-Frank Act, Commentary and Insights by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Associates--Chapter1: Orderly Liquidation Authority	9

Title

Downl.

The Dodd-Frank Act, Commentary and Insights by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Associates--Chapter1: Orderly Liquidation Authority

LOS ANGELES - Investors have not failed to plead falsity with the requisite specificity in making their federal securities law claims against a television advertising company and others, a federal judge in California ruled in dismissing the investors' amended complaint with leave to amend in an opinion made available on Nov. 30 (Dan Katz v. China Century Dragon Media, Inc., et al., No. 11-2769, C.D. Calif.). Full story on lexis.com

Featured Content

You are not logged in. Please Login to add content to your community page

Visit Other Communities By

Latest Postings

Most Viewed Postings

Popular Downloads

Judge: Investors Failed To Plead Falsity With Requisite Specificity

LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Emerging Securities Litigation Legal News