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.

In re Puda Coal Sec. Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

July 14, 2014

IN RE PUDA COAL SECURITIES INC., et al. LITIGATION; This document relates to: ALL ACTIONS

Page 262

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 263

Salomon Querub, Howard Pritchard, Lead Plaintiffs: Kevin F. Ruf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Robert Vincent Prongay, PRO HAC VICE, Michael Marc Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Michael Jonathan Wernke, LEAD ATTORNEY, Pomerantz LLP, New York, NY; David E Kovel, John Brandon Walker, Kirby McInerney LLP, New York, NY; Joshua Lon Crowell, Labaton Sucharow, LLP, New York, NY; Laurence Matthew Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (NYC), New York, Ny; Lionel Z. Glancy, PRO HAC VICE, Glancy & Binkow Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Louis Carey Ludwig, PRO HAC VICE, Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP, Chicago, IL; Michael Goldberg, PRO HAC VICE, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP (CA), Los Angeles, CA; Robin Bronzaft Howald, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, New York, NY; Yu Shi, The Rosen Law Firm. P.A., New York, NY.

For Hotel Ventures, Lead Plaintiff: Kevin F. Ruf, LEAD ATTORNEY, Robert Vincent Prongay, PRO HAC VICE, Michael Marc Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Michael Jonathan Wernke, LEAD ATTORNEY, Pomerantz LLP, New York, NY; David E Kovel, John Brandon Walker, Kirby McInerney LLP, New York, NY; Joshua Lon Crowell, Labaton Sucharow, LLP, New York, NY; Laurence Matthew Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (NYC), New York, Ny; Lionel Z. Glancy, PRO HAC VICE, Glancy & Binkow Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Louis Carey Ludwig, PRO HAC VICE, Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP, Chicago, IL; Michael Goldberg, PRO HAC VICE, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP (CA), Los Angeles, CA; Robin Bronzaft Howald, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, New York, NY; Sara Esther Fuks, Milberg LLP (NYC), New York, NY; Yu Shi, The Rosen Law Firm. P.A., New York, NY.

For Harriet Goldstein, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff: Curtis Victor Trinko, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, New York, NY; Adriene O. Bell, PRO HAC VICE, D. Seamus Kaskela, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (PA), Radnor, PA; David M. Promisloff, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor, PA; Jennifer Elizabeth Traystman, Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, New York, NY; Louis Carey Ludwig, PRO HAC VICE, Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP, Chicago, IL; Myron Harris, PRO HAC VICE, Philadelphia, PA.

For Thomas Rosenberger, Plaintiff: Jeffrey Philip Campisi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (NYC), New York, NY; Laurence Matthew Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (NYC), New York, Ny; Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy & Binkow Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Louis Carey Ludwig, PRO HAC VICE, Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP, Chicago, IL; Robin Bronzaft Howald, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, New York, NY.

For Steven Weissmann, Plaintiff: Laurence Matthew Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (NYC), New York, Ny; Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy & Binkow Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Louis Carey Ludwig, PRO HAC VICE, Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP, Chicago, IL; Michael Jonathan Wernke, Pomerantz LLP, New York, NY; Robin Bronzaft Howald, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, New York, NY.

For Trellus Management Company Llc, Plaintiff: Laurence Matthew Rosen, LEAD ATTORNEY, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (NYC), New York, Ny; Robin Bronzaft Howald, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, New York, NY; Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy & Binkow Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles, CA.

For Connie L. Douglass 1996 Revocable Trust, Trinity Global Growth & Income Fund, LP, Movants: William Bernard Federman, Federman & Sherwood, Oklahoma City, OK.

For Greg And Jana Womack Living Trust, Movant: William Bernard Federman, Federman & Sherwood, Oklahoma City, OK.

Samuel Blankenship, Movant, Pro se.

For Donald Wilkinson, Robert Thumith, Movants: Andrei V. Rado, Milberg LLP (NYC), New York, NY.

For Puda Coal Investors Group, Movant: Frederic Scott Fox, Sr, LEAD ATTORNEY, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (NYC), New York, NY.

For Puda Coal Shareholder Group, Movant: David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP(LI), Melville, NY.

For Cesare Crognale, Movant: Albert Yong Chang, LEAD ATTORNEY, Johnson Bottini, LLP, San Diego, CA.

For Puda Coal, Inc., Defendant: Alfred Robert Pietrzak, Sidley Austin LLP (NY), New York, NY.

For Moore Stephens Hong Kong, Defendant: Brian James Massengill, LEAD ATTORNEY, Mayer Brown LLP (Chicago), Chicago, IL; Dana S. Douglas, Justin Adam McCarty, PRO HAC VICE, Jonathan Craig Medow, Mayer Brown LLP (Chicago), Chicago, IL.

For Moore Stephens, P.C., Defendant: Joseph Alexander Baratta, LEAD ATTORNEY, Ottavio Vincenzo Mannarino, Baratta, Baratta & Aidala LLP, New York, NY; Michael Vincent Cibella, Law Office of Michael V. Cibella, New York, NY.

Page 264

OPINION & ORDER

KATHERINE B. FORREST, United State District Judge.

The second consolidated amended complaint in this matter (" Compl.," ECF No. 352) asserts claims, inter alia, against Brean Murray, Carret & Co. (" Brean Murray" ) and Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. (" Macquarie" ) (collectively, the " underwriters" ), the underwriters of a public stock offering by Puda Coal Inc. (" Puda" ), under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Now before the Court are the underwriters' motions to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that (1) plaintiffs fail to allege that the underwriters " made" the false statements within the meaning of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, (2) plaintiffs fail to allege facts sufficient for scienter, (3) plaintiff Trellus's claims are time-barred, and (4) Trellus lacks standing. (ECF Nos. 370, 373.)

For the reasons set forth below, both motions are DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

The Court assumes familiarity with the factual background underlying this action. This action arises from an alleged fraudulent scheme orchestrated by defendant Ming Zhao (" Zhao" ) to mislead investors as to the true ownership of Puda's primary operating subsidiary, the Shanxi Puda Coal Group Co., Ltd. (" Shanxi" ). Although Puda represented in public filings ...


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.