The District Court correctly found that lead plaintiff in this class action failed to establish a material misstatement or omission by Merck in the registration statements filed in connection with an IPO and, thus, that it did not sufficiently plead a securities fraud under � 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or under � 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and that it therefore also failed to make a valid � 20(a) claim under the '34 Act; the dismissal of these claims is affirmed.
January 02, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
Presented by BigVoodoo
New Jersey Law Journal honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in New Jersey with their dedication to the profession.
This conference aims to help insurers and litigators better manage complex claims and litigation.
Recognizing innovation in the legal technology sector for working on precedent-setting, game-changing projects and initiatives.
Company DescriptionA prominent boutique AV rated Education Law firm located in Westbury, New York. Our firm specializes in education law, sp...
Seeking motivated and skilled litigation attorney to join our dynamic defense litigation firm. Role Involves:Conducting thorough research.Ha...
DEPUTY PORT ATTORNEY III Oakland, CA Salary: $17,294 - $21,419/month, 37.5-hr work week Your Port. Your Community. Your Career. Whe...