Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MORIN v. TRUPIN

July 27, 1992

SIMEON MORIN, et al., Plaintiffs, against BARRY H. TRUPIN, et al., Defendants. NORMAN E. GAAR, Plaintiff, - against - BARRY H. TRUPIN, et al., Defendants. MICHAEL P. ALBERTI, M.D., et al., Plaintiffs, - against - BARRY H. TRUPIN, et al., Defendants.

SWEET


The opinion of the court was delivered by: ROBERT W. SWEET

Sweet, D. J.

 Plaintiffs in the related actions of Morin v. Trupin, No. 88 Civ. 5743, and Alberti v. Trupin, No. 90 Civ. 3475, have moved pursuant to § 476 of the FDIC Improvement Act of 1991, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa, to reinstate their claims under § 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 which were previously dismissed as time-barred by opinion and order of this court dated November 18, 1991 (the "Opinion"). See Morin v. Trupin, 778 F. Supp. 711 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

 Background

 On December 19, 1991, President Bush signed into law § 476 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-242, 105 Stat. 2236 (codified at § 27A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa), which proscribed pro forma retroactive application of the Lampf rule. New section 27A provides that:

 (a) EFFECT ON PENDING CAUSES OF ACTION -- The limitation period for any private action implied under section 10(b) of this Act that was commenced on or before June 19, 1991, shall be the limitation period provided by the laws applicable in the jurisdiction, including principles of retroactivity, as such laws existed on June 19, 1991.

 (b) EFFECT ON DISMISSED CAUSES OF ACTION -- Any private civil action implied under section 10(b) of this Act that was commenced on or before June 19, 1991 --

 (1) which was dismissed as time barred subsequent to June 19, 1991, and

 (2) which would have been timely filed under the limitation period provided by the laws applicable in the jurisdiction, including principles of retroactivity, as such laws existed on June 19, 1991,

 shall be reinstated on motion by the plaintiff no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this section.

 The Morin and Alberti plaintiffs now move pursuant to § 27A(b) for reinstatement of their § 10(b) claims. *fn2" The Mintz Fraade Defendants, as defined in the Opinion, oppose the motion on the grounds that the plaintiffs' § 10(b) claims are untimely even under the law as it existed in this circuit on June 19, 1991. *fn3" The present motion was filed on February 4, 1992. Oral argument was heard on March 11, 1992 and the motion was considered fully submitted on March 27, 1992.

 Discussion

 There is no dispute that the Morin and Alberti plaintiffs have established three of the four elements necessary for reinstatement pursuant to § 27A(b): they filed these actions prior to June 19, 1991; their claims were dismissed as time-barred subsequent to June 19, 1991; and they brought this motion to reinstate on ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.