Philip Z. Selendy, Jonathan E. Pickhardt, Nicholas F. Joseph, Sarah E. Trombley, Sean P. Baldwin, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, New York, NY, Attorneys for Plaintiff Intesa Sanpaolo, S.p.A.
Lea H. Kuck, Gregory A. Litt, SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, New York, NY, Attorneys for Defendants Credit Agricole Corporate and, Investment Bank and Credit Agricole Securities, (U.S.A.) Inc.
Sean M. Murphy, Thomas A. Arena, Justin A. Alfano, Robert C. Hora, MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY LLP, New York, NY, Attorneys for Defendant The Putnam Advisory Co., LLC One Chase Manhattan Plaza.
Joseph Serino, Jr., John P. Del Monaco, Nathaniel J. Kritzer, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, New York, NY, Attorneys for Defendants Magnetar Capital LLC, Magnetar Capital Fund, LP and Magnetar Financial LLC.
ROBERT W. SWEET, District Judge.
Plaintiff Intesa Sanpaolo, S.p.A., ("Intesa" or "Plaintiff") has filed a second amended complaint (the "SAC") in which Intesa has asserted federal securities fraud claims against Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank and Credit Agricole Securities (U.S.A.) Inc. (collectively, "Calyon") and The Putnam Advisory Company, LLC ("Putnam"), and state law claims against Calyon, Putnam, and Magnetar Capital LLC, Magnetar Financial LLC and Magnetar Capital Fund, LP (collectively, "Magnetar", and along with Calyon and Putnam, the "Defendants").
The Defendants have moved, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) ("9(b)") and 12(b)(6) ("12(b)(6)"), to dismiss the SAC. Upon the conclusions set forth below, the Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted with prejudice.
The facts of this case have been set forth in detail in this Court's opinion dismissing Intesa's first amended complaint. See Intesa Sanpaolo, S.p.A. v. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, et al., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, No. 12 Civ. 2683 (RWS), 2013 WL 525000 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2013) ("Intesa I"). Familiarity with those facts is assumed.
Intesa filed its initial complaint on April 6, 2012, in which it asserted claims for federal securities fraud pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5(b) (hereinafter "§10(b)"), as well as several related state law claims. The Defendants moved to dismiss, after which Intesa voluntarily withdrew its complaint. On June 22, 2012, Intesa filed its first amended complaint, which asserted the same causes of action against virtually the same set of defendants as in the initial complaint, but contained additional allegations and documentary evidence in support of Intesa's claims.
On February 13, 2013, the Court issued an opinion in which it dismissed Intesa's §10(b) claims as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b) ("§1658(b)"), and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Intesa I, 2013 WL 525000, at *8.
Intesa subsequently filed a second amended complaint ("SAC") in which it has again asserted §10(b) claims as well as related state law claims for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the SAC, contending, inter alia, that despite new allegations in the SAC designed to cure the timeliness issue with respect to Intesa's §10(b) claims, those claims are ...