Monday, January 25, 2010

No State-Law Market For "Fraud On The Market"

As we said last week, because it’s a Dechert case, we can’t comment directly on Clark v. Pfizer, Inc., 2010 WL 163583, slip op. (Pa. Super. Jan. 19, 2010).  However, we were sufficiently inspired by what's in the opinion that we thought this would be a good time to put in our two cents worth about one of the theories that the Clark plaintiffs pursued:  "fraud on the market."

As defense lawyers, we want to do our part in killling off this pernicious import from federal securities law.  So we decided to take an in-depth look at all of the the precedent that rejects application of a “fraud on the market” reliance presumption to state-law claims.


Just to make sure that everyone’s with us, briefly “fraud on the market” is a doctrine that waters down fraud (and, plaintiffs would like to say, other liability theories based on claimed misinformation) by presuming reliance in certain limited circumstances. See Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988) (4 justice majority of 7-justice court).  It's not a state law claim - the Supreme Court has never applied a "fraud on the market" presumption to state law even in securities cases.

The presumption arose because the Supreme Court bought a questionable proposition – that securities markets are “efficient” and "developed." in other words, because there are so many participants in national stock markets, and those participants have such a voracious appetite for information, then anything about a particular stock is essentially instantaneously reflected in that stock’s price. Because of that (rather questionable) conclusion, any plaintiff in a securities fraud suit is “presumed” to rely on any material disinformation.

That's the theory.  In practice, however, what “fraud on the market” is really all about is class actions – reliance is ordinarily considered an individualized issue that's kryptonite to the supposed "superman" of class actions . Without “fraud on the market,” there probably wouldn’t be very many securities class actions. Conversely, if plaintiffs could import the “fraud on the market” presumption of reliance into non-securities contexts – such as consumer fraud/common-law fraud/warranty litigation against our drug/device clients – an invasion of class actions would follow like night follows day.

It’s hardly surprising that, because we don’t want class actions certified against our clients, we’re not big fans of “fraud on the market,” and we want to remain see it tightly confined to securities litigation (indeed, abolished altogether, if we were kings of the world).

So far our side's been pretty successful (as in Clark). In the interests of maintaining that success, we offfer here a state-by-state break down of the precedent refusing to adopt “fraud on the market” or similar presumed reliance theories to state-law (not federal - no RICO or antitrust cases here) causes of action – everything from product liability to consumer fraud to state securities and other statutes.  A lot of the cases reading "In re [fill in the blank] Securities Litigation" are cases refusing to apply "fraud on the market" to pendent state law claims, whether or not the decision applied that theory to the federal causes of action.

We remind defense counsel to use this chart with appropriate caution.  In particular, there's some contrary precedent, maybe a dozen or two cases nationwide.  It mostly falls into two categories:  (1) interpretations of state securities law statutes, and (2) older federal cases, involving tag-along pendent state claims from the era of "certify first and worry later" that existed prior to the Supreme Court's crackdown on class actions in the mid-1990s.  Adhering to our policy of not doing the other side's research for them, we don't include it here.  Just be aware that there are some stray adverse cases out there, and research accordingly.

Second, we don't claim to have comprehensively researched presumed reliance theories other than "fraud on the market" – it took us bloody long enough as it is – but we've included whatever we happened to encounter along the way.  There may well be other cases rejecting presumed reliance claims that we didn't find if they didn't use the magic words "fraud on the market."

Everybody except lawyers can stop reading now, since what follows is really dry:  a list of the cases, organized by the law of the jurisdiction, that have refused to apply presumed reliance theories (mostly "fraud on the market"), in state law actions of various kinds.  We apologize for not categorizing them by the precise claims involved, but you defense lawyers out there have to have something to justify billing your clients for.

Here goes:

All (or a lot of different state’s) Law

Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 368 F.3d 356, 370 (4th Cir. 2004); In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation, 55 F.3d 768, 783 (3d Cir. 1995); In re Neurontin Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, 618 F. Supp.2d 96, 111-12 (D. Mass. 2009); In re Neurontin Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, 257 F.R.D. 315, 324 (D. Mass. 2009); Miller v. General Motors Corp., 2003 WL 168626, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2003); Poulos v. Caesars World, Inc., 2002 WL 1991180, at 9 n.10 (D. Nev. June 25, 2002); In re Ford Motor Co. Vehicle Paint Litigation, 182 F.R.D. 214, 221-22 (E.D. La. 1998); In re Newbridge Networks Securities Litigation, 926 F. Supp. 1163, 1175 (D.D.C. 1996); Kelley v. Mid-America Racing Stables, Inc., 139 F.R.D. 405, 410-11 (W.D. Okla. 1990); Moskowitz v. Lopp, 128 F.R.D. 624, 632 (E.D. Pa. 1989); In re Bexar County Health Facility Development Corp. Securities Litigation, 125 F.R.D. 625, 636 (E.D. Pa. 1989); Snider v. Upjohn Co., 115 F.R.D. 536, 542 (E.D. Pa. 1987); Rosenberg v. Digilog Inc., 648 F. Supp. 40, 43-44 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (can’t tell what state’s law); Seiden v. Nicholson, 69 F.R.D. 681, 686 (N.D. Ill. 1976). See “Tort Law – Indirect Reliance – New Jersey Supreme Court Rejects Fraud-On-The-Market Theory,” 114 Harv. L. Rev. 2550, 2550 (June 2001).

Alabama

Ex parte Household Retail Services, Inc., 744 So.2d 871, 880 n. 2 (Ala. 1999); Ex parte Exxon Corp., 725 So.2d 930, 933 n.3 (Ala. 1998).

Alaska

We didn’t find anything useful along these lines under Alaska law.

Arizona

Osuna v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2004 WL 3255430, at *6 (Ariz. Super. Dec. 23, 2004); Siemer v. Associates First Capital Corp., 2001 WL 35948712, at *23 (D. Ariz. March 30, 2001); Hoexter v. Simmons, 140 F.R.D. 416, 424 (D. Ariz. 1991); Persky v. Turley, 1991 WL 327434, at *10 (D. Ariz. Dec. 19, 1991).

Arkansas

Frelin v. Oakwood Homes Corp., 2002 WL 31863487, at *10 n.45 (Ark. Cir. Nov. 25, 2002).

California

Mirkin v. Wasserman, 858 P.2d 568, 580 (Cal. 1993); Whiteley v. Philip Morris Inc., 11 Cal. Rptr.3d 807, 854 (Cal. App. 2004); Stevens v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 57 Cal. Rptr.2d 525, 541-42 (Cal. App. 1996); In re GlenFed, Inc. Securities Litigation, 60 F.3d 591, 592 (9th Cir. 1995) (applying California law); In re Actimmune Marketing Litigation, 614 F. Supp.2d 1037, 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2009); In re Actimmune Marketing Litigation, 2009 WL 3740648, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2009); Gonzalez v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 247 F.R.D. 616, 624-25 (S.D. Cal. 2007); Gartin v. S & M NuTec LLC, 245 F.R.D. 429, 438 (C.D. Cal. 2007); Mathews v. Centex Telemanagement, Inc., 1994 WL 269734, at *8 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 1994); In re Cypress Semiconductor Securities Litigation, 836 F. Supp. 711, 714-15 (N.D. Cal. 1993); In re ZZZZ Best Securities Litigation, 1994 WL 675160, at*2 (C.D. Cal. May 25, 1994); In re Allergan Inc. Securities Litigation, 1993 WL 623321, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 1993); In re Verifone Securities Litigation, 784 F. Supp. 1471, 1488 (N.D. Cal. 1992); In re Sunrise Technologies Securities Litigation, 1992 WL 359636, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 1992); XOMA Corp. Securities Litigation, 1990 WL 357807, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 1991); In re Keegan Management Co. Securities Litigation, 1991 WL 253003, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 1991); Knapp v. Gomez, 1991 WL 214172, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 25, 1991); In re Software Toolworks, Inc. Securities Litigation, 1991 WL 319033, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 1991); Flashman v. Singleton, 1991 WL 83963, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. March 20, 1991); In re Ramtek Securities Litigation, 1991 WL 56067, at *8 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 1991); In re 3Com Securities Litigation, 761 F. Supp. 1411, 1419 (N.D. Cal. 1990); In re Wyse Technology Securities Litigation, 1990 WL 169149, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 1990); In re Ramtek Securities Litigation, 1990 WL 157391, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 1990); Cytryn v. Cook, 1990 WL 128233, at *8 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 1990); Victor v. White, 1989 WL 108276, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 1989); In re Technical Equities Federal Securities Litigation, 1988 WL 147607, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 1988).

Colorado

Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Benzing, 206 P.3d 812, 820-22 (Colo. 2009); Rosenthal v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 908 P.2d 1095, 1104 (Colo. 1995); Garcia v. Medved Chevrolet, Inc., ___ P.3d ___, 2009 WL 3765481, at *9 (Colo. App. Nov. 12, 2009); In re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2006 WL 557149, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. March 7, 2006) (applying Colorado law); Schwartz v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 313, 317-18 (D. Colo. 1999); In re Synergen, Inc. Securities Litigation, 154 F.R.D. 265, 267 (D. Colo. 1994).

Connecticut

Contreras v. Host America Corp., 453 F. Supp.2d 416, 420 (D. Conn. 2006).

Delaware

Malone v. Brincat, 722 A.2d 5, 13 (Del. 1998); Gaffin v. Teledyne, Inc., 611 A.2d 467, 474-75 (Del. 1992); NACCO Industries, Inc. v. Applica Inc., ___ A.2d ___, 2009 WL 4981577, at *25 (Del. Ch. Dec. 22, 2009); Anglo American Security Fund, L.P. v. S.R. Global International Fund, L.P., 2006 WL 1494360, at *3 & n.41 (Del. Ch. May 24, 2006); Manzo v. Rite Aid Corp., 2002 WL 31926606, at *4 (Del. Dec.19, 2002), aff’d, 825 A.2d 239 (Del. 2003); In re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation, 336 F. Supp.2d 310, 320 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (applying Delaware law); Burekovitch v. Hertz, 2001 WL 984942, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. July 24, 2001) (applying Delaware law).

District of Columbia

Williams v. Purdue Pharma Co., 297 F. Supp.2d 171, 177 (D.D.C. 2003).

Florida

Kahler v. E.F. Hutton Co., 558 So.2d 144, 145 (Fla. App. 1990); Raulerson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 1997 WL 34628064 (Fla. Cir. March 3, 1997); Mergens v. Dreyfoos, 166 F.3d 1114, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999) (applying Florida law); Prohias v. Pfizer, Inc., 485 F. Supp.2d 1329, 1337-39 (S.D. Fla. 2007); Miller v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, 223 F.R.D. 659, 664 (M.D. Fla. 2004); Jacobs v. Osmose, Inc., 2002 WL 34241682, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2002); Hamilton Partners, Ltd. v. Sunbeam Corp., 2001 WL 34556527, at *16 (S.D. Fla. July 3, 2001); Butterworth v. Quick & Reilly, Inc., 998 F. Supp. 1404, 1410-11 (M.D. Fla. 1998); Joy v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 1998 WL 35229355, at *5 (M.D. Fla. May 8, 1998); Butterworth v. Quick & Reilly, Inc., 171 F.R.D. 319, 322 (M.D. Fla. 1997); Waters v. International Precious Metals Corp., 172 F.R.D. 479, 502 (S.D. Fla. 1996); In re Checkers Securities Litigation, 858 F. Supp. 1168, 1179 (M.D. Fla. 1994); In re Cascade International Securities Litigation, 840 F. Supp. 1558, 1583 (S.D. Fla. 1993); Tapken v. Brown, 1992 WL 178984, at *24 (S.D. Fla. March 13, 1992); In re Sahlen & Assoc., Inc. Securities Litigation, 773 F. Supp. 342, 371 (S.D. Fla. 1991).

Georgia

White v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 549 S.E.2d 490, 493 (Ga. App. 2001); Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1369 n.39 (11th Cir. 1997) (applying Georgia law); Next Century Communications Corp. v. Ellis, 214 F. Supp.2d 1366, 1371-72 (N.D. Ga.), aff’d, 318 F.3d 1023 (11th Cir. 2002); In re ValuJet, Inc., 984 F. Supp. 1472, 1481 (N.D. Ga. 1997); Wells v. HBO & Co., 813 F. Supp. 1561, 1569 (N.D. Ga. 1992).

Hawai’i

We didn’t find anything useful along these lines under Hawai’i law.

Idaho

Gerstein v. Micron Technology, 1993 WL 735031, at *9 (D. Idaho Jan. 9, 1993).

Illinois

De Bouse v. Bayer, ___ N.E.2d ___, 2009 WL 4843362, at *5-6 (Ill. Dec. 17, 2009); Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 776 N.E.2d 151, 161-64 (Ill. 2002); Hartmann v. Prudential Insurance Co., 9 F.3d 1207, 1212 (7th Cir. 1993) (applying Illinois law); Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 514-15 (7th Cir. 2006); Scott v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare LP, 2006 WL 952032, at *3 (N.D. Ill. April 12, 2006); Amzak Corp. v. Reliant Energy, Inc., 2004 WL 1882482, at *6 n.2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2004); Miller v. General Motors Corp., 2003 WL 168626, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2003); Tylka v. Gerber Products Co., 1999 WL 495126, at *13 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 1999); In re First Merchants Acceptance Corp. Securities Litigation, 1998 WL 781118, at *13 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4, 1998); Gilford Partners, L.P. v. Sensormatic Electronics Corp., 1997 WL 757495, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 24, 1997); Gilford Partners, L.P. v. Sensormatic Electronics Corp., 1997 WL 570771, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 10, 1997); In re Soybean Futures Litigation, 892 F. Supp. 1025, 1060 (N.D. Ill. 1995); Searls v. Glasser, 1994 WL 523712, at *14 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 23, 1994); In re Information Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation, 1994 WL 124890, at *4 (N.D. Ill. April 11, 1994); Morse v. Abbot Laboratories, 756 F. Supp. 1108, 1112 (N.D. Ill. 1991); Good v. Zenith Electric Corp., 751 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Ill. 1990); Katz v. Comdisco, Inc., 117 F.R.D. 403, 412 (N.D. Ill. 1987).

Indiana

Kantner v. Merck & Co., 2007 WL 3092779 ¶¶ 17-19 (Ind. Super. April 18, 2007); Zandman v. Joseph, 102 F.R.D. 924, 929 (N.D. Ind. 1984).

Iowa

We didn’t find anything useful along these lines under Iowa law.

Kansas

Porter v. Merck & Co., 2005 WL 3719630, at *3 (Kan. Dist. Aug. 19 2005); In re Cessna 208 Series Aircraft Products Liability Litigation, 2009 WL 274509, at *6 (D. Feb. 5, 2009); Antonson v. Robertson, 141 F.R.D. 501, 508 (D. Kan. 1991).

Kentucky

Mittman v. Rally’s Hamburgers, Inc., 278 F. Supp.2d 831, 843 (W.D. Ky. 2003) (we think so, anyway).

Louisiana

In re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation, 524 F. Supp.2d 436, 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (applying Louisiana law).

Maine

Howard’s Rexall Stores, Inc. v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 2001 WL 501055, at *5 (D. Me. May 8, 2001); In re One Bancorp Securities Litigation, 136 F.R.D. 526, 533 (D. Me. 1991).

Maryland

Agbebaku v. Sigma Aldrich, Inc., 2003 WL 24258219, at *10 (Md. Cir. June 24, 2003); Cofield v. Lead Industries Ass’n, Inc., 2000 WL 34292681, at *10 (D. Md. Aug. 17, 2000); In re Medimmune, Inc. Securities Litigation, 873 F. Supp. 953, 968 (D. Md. 1995).

Massachusetts

Aspinall v. Philip Morris Cos., 813 N.E.2d 476, 490 n.23 (Mass. 2004); Young v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 2004 WL 2341344, at *5 (Mass. Super. Sept. 20, 2004); In re TJX Cos. Retail Security Breach Litigation, 246 F.R.D. 389, 395-96 (D. Mass. 2007); In re Fidelity/Apple Securities Litigation, 986 F. Supp. 42, 49 (D. Mass. 1997); Mallozzi v. Zoll Medical Corp., 1996 WL 392146, at *11 (D. Mass. March 5, 1996); Van de Velde v. Coopers & Lybrand, 899 F. Supp. 731, 738 (D. Mass. 1995); Wells v. Monarch Capital Corp., 1991 WL 354938, at *13 (D. Mass. Aug. 23, 1991); In Re Bank of Boston Corp. Securities Litigation, 762 F. Supp. 1525, 1536 (D. Mass. 1991); In re Jiffy Lube Securities Litigation, 1990 WL 10010982, at *10 (D. Md. Oct. 31, 1990).

Michigan

Krieger v. Gast, 197 F.R.D. 310, 320 (W.D. Mich. 2000); Yadlosky v. Grant Thorton, L.L.P., 197 F.R.D. 292, 299 (E.D. Mich. 2000); O’Neil v. Appel, 165 F.R.D. 479, 505 (W.D. Mich. 1996); In re Rospatch Securities Litigation, 1991 WL 427890, at *11 (W.D. Mich. July 22, 1991).

Minnesota

Thompson v. American Tobacco Co., 189 F.R.D. 544, 553 n.4 (D. Minn. 1999); In re Digi International, Inc. Securities Litigation, 6 F. Supp.2d 1089, 1104 (D. Minn. 1998), aff’d, 14 Fed. Appx. 714 (8th Cir. 2001); Bruzer v. Danek Medical, Inc., 1998 WL 1048225, at *7 (D. Minn. Oct. 1, 1998); In re SciMed Securities Litigation, 1993 WL 616692, at*7 (D. Minn. Sept. 29, 1993).

Missisippi

In re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation, ___ F. Supp.2d ___, 2009 WL 4260857, at *56-60 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2009) (applying Mississippi law); Coleman v. Danek Medical, Inc., 43 F. Supp.2d 629, 635 n.4 (S.D. Miss. 1998) (common-law fraud).

Missouri

We didn’t find anything useful along these lines under Missouri law.

Montana

We didn’t find anything useful along these lines under Montana law.

Nebraska

We didn’t find anything useful along these lines under Nebraska law.

Nevada

Picus v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 651, 659 (D. Nev. 2009); In re Stratosphere Corp. Securities Litigation, 1 F. Supp.2d 1096, 1123 (D. Nev. 1998).

New Hampshire

Mulligan v. Choice Mortgage Corp. USA, 1998 WL 544431, at *7 n.6 (D.N.H. Aug. 11, 1998); Rothwell v. Chubb Life Insurance Co., 191 F.R.D. 25, 31-32 (D.N.H. 1998).

New Jersey

International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 68 Welfare Fund v. Merck & Co., 929 A.2d 1076, 1088 (N.J. 2007); Kaufman v. i-Stat Corp., 754 A.2d 1188, 1195-96 (N.J. 2000); Lee v. Carter-Reed Co., L.L.C., 2009 WL 2475314, at *6 (N.J. Super. A.D. Aug. 14, 2009); Dabush v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 874 A.2d 1110, 1121 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2005); New Jersey Citizen Action v. Schering-Plough Corp., 842 A.2d 174, 178-79 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2003); Fink v. Ricoh Corp., 839 A.2d 942, 963-64 (N.J. Super. L.D. 2003); In re Neurontin Marketing, Sales Practices And Products Liability Litigation, 257 F.R.D. 315, 324 (D. Mass. 2009) (applying New Jersey law); Southeast Laborers Health and Welfare Fund v. Bayer Corp., 655 F. Supp.2d 1270, 1287-88 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (applying New Jersey law); McNair v. Synapse Group, Inc., 2009 WL 1873582, at *9 (D.N.J. June 29, 2009); In re Schering-Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action, 2009 WL 2043604, at *21-22 (D.N.J. July 10, 2009); Prohias v. Pfizer, Inc., 485 F. Supp.2d 1329, 1337-38 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (applying New Jersey law); In re Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation, 501 F. Supp.2d 452, 495 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (applying New Jersey law); Heindel v. Pfizer, Inc., 381 F. Supp.2d 364, 380-381 (D.N.J. 2004); Brown v. Philip Morris Inc., 228 F. Supp.2d 506, 518 (D.N.J. 2002); In re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation, 210 F.R.D. 61, 68 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (applying New Jersey law); Morgan v. Markerdowne Corp., 201 F.R.D. 341, 347 (D.N.J. 2001); Weikel v. Tower Semiconductor Ltd., 183 F.R.D. 377, 400 n.12 (D.N.J. 1998); In re Crazy Eddie Securities Litigation, 802 F. Supp. 804, 812 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) (applying New Jersey law); Faktor v. American Biomaterials Corp., 1991 WL 336922, at *7 (D.N.J. May 28, 1991); Cammer v. Bloom, 711 F. Supp. 1264, 1298 (D.N.J. 1989); In re ORFA Securities Litigation, 654 F. Supp. 1449, 1460 (D. N.J. 1987).

New Mexico

Freedman v. Value Health, Inc., 2000 WL 630916, at *9 (D. Conn. March 24, 2000) (applying New Mexico law); In re Mesa Airlines Securities Litigation, 1996 WL 33419894, at *19 (D.N.M. May 31, 1996) (we think so, anyway).

New York

Baron v. Pfizer, Inc., 840 N.Y.S.2d 445, 448 (N.Y.A.D. 2007); Klein v. Robert’s American Gourmet Food, Inc., 808 N.Y.S.2d 766, 773 n.1 (N.Y.A.D. 2006); Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse, 683 N.Y.S.2d 179, 192 (N.Y.A.D. 1998); Strauss v. Long Island Sports, Inc., 401 N.Y.S.2d 233, 236-38 (N.Y.A.D. 1978); Stellema v. Vantage Press, Inc., 470 N.Y.S.2d 507, 510 (N.Y. Sup. 1983); Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 222 F.3d 63, 71-73 (2d Cir. 2000); In re Pfizer Inc. Securities Litigation, 584 F. Supp.2d 621, 644 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., 530 F. Supp.2d 580, 598-99 n.138 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); Prohias v. Pfizer, Inc., 485 F. Supp.2d 1329, 1337-38 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (applying New York law); Feinberg v. Katz, 2007 WL 4562930, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2007); In re Marsh & Mclennan Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation, 501 F. Supp.2d 452, 495 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); Cromer Finance Ltd. v. Berger, 2003 WL 21436164, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2003); Waksman v. Cohen, 2002 WL 31466417, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov 4, 2002); In re Motel 6 Securities Litigation, 161 F. Supp.2d 227, 232 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); Redtail Leasing, Inc. v. Bellezza, 1997 WL 603496, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 1997); Rowe v. Marietta Corp., 955 F. Supp. 829, 835 (W. D. Tenn.1996) (applying New York law); In re Motel 6 Securities Litigation, 1997 WL 154011, at *5-6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 1997); In re ICN/Viratek Securities Litigation, 1996 WL 164732, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. April 9, 1996); Banque Arabe et Internationale D’Investissement v. Maryland National Bank, 850 F. Supp. 1199, 1221 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), aff’d, 57 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 1995); Turtur v. Rothschild Registry International., Inc., 1993 WL 338205, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 1993); In re Crazy Eddie Securities Litigation, 802 F. Supp. 804, 812 (E.D.N.Y. 1992); Schultz v. Commercial Programming Unlimited Inc., 1992 WL 396434, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 1992); In re Nord Resources Corp. Securities Litigation, 1992 WL 1258516, at *9-11 (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 16, 1992) (applying New York law); In re Donahue Securities Inc., 2004 WL 3152763, at *5-6 (Bkrtcy. S.D. Ohio 2004) (applying New York law).

North Carolina

We didn’t find anything useful along these lines under North Carolina law.

North Dakota

We didn’t find anything useful along these lines under North Dakota law.

Ohio

In re Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation, 501 F. Supp.2d 452, 495 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (applying Ohio law); Graham v. American Cyanamid Co., 2000 WL 1911431, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 21, 2000), aff’d, 350 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2003); Stavroff v. Meyo, 987 F. Supp. 987, 1002 (N.D. Ohio 1995), aff’d mem., 129 F.3d 1265 (6th Cir. 1997) (the affirmance makes clear this is Ohio law); In re Donahue Securities Inc., 2004 WL 3152763, at *6 (Bkrtcy. S.D. Ohio 2004).

Oklahoma

Bunch v. Kmart Corp., 898 P.2d 170, 171-72 (Okla. App. 1995).

Oregon

Beebe v. Pacific Realty Trust, 99 F.R.D. 60, 71 (D. Or. 1983).

Pennsylvania

Weinberg v. Sun Co., 777 A.2d 442, 446 (Pa. 2001); Clark v. Pfizer, Inc., ___ A.2d ___, 2010 WL 163583, at *6 (Pa. Super. Jan. 19, 2010); Commonwealth v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2010 WL 2603913 slip op., at pp. 11-14 (Pa. C.P. June 25, 2010); Aubrey v. Sanders, ___ Fed. Appx. ___, 2009 WL 3059055, at *2 (3d Cir. Sep. 24, 2009) (applying Pennsylvania law); Hunt v. United States Tobacco Co., 538 F.3d 217, 227-28 (3d. Cir. 2008); Peil v. Speiser, 806 F.2d 1154, 1163 n.17 (3d Cir. 1986) (applying Pennsylvania law); Heindel v. Pfizer, Inc., 381 F. Supp.2d 364, 380-381, 384-386 (D.N.J. 2004) (applying Pennsylvania law); Wallace v. Systems & Computer Technology Corp., 1997 WL 602808, at *24 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 1997); In re Herley Securities Litigation, 161 F.R.D. 288, 292 (E.D. Pa. 1995); In re Westinghouse Securities Litigation, 832 F. Supp. 948, 989 (W.D. Pa. 1993), rev’d in part on other grounds, 90 F.3d 696 (3d Cir. 1996); Friedman v. Lansdale Parking Authority, 1993 WL 338174, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 1993); In re Scott Paper Co. Securities Litigation, 142 F.R.D. 611, 617 (E.D. Pa. 1992); In re Atlantic Financial Federal Securities Litigation, 1990 WL 188927, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 1990); Gavron v. Blinder Robinson & Co., 115 F.R.D. 318, 325 (E.D. Pa. 1987).

Rhode Island

We didn’t find anything useful along these lines under Rhode Island law.

South Carolina

Gunnells v. Healthplan Services, Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 435-36 (4th Cir. 2003) (applying South Carolina law); Pitten v. Jacobs, 903 F. Supp. 937, 952 (D.S.C. 1995).

South Dakota

We didn’t find anything useful along these lines under South Dakota law.

Tennessee

In re Sofamor Danek Group, Inc., 123 F.3d 394, 403-04 (6th Cir. 1997) (applying Tennessee law).

Texas

McManus v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 320 F.3d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 20 2003) (applying Texas law); Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, 283 F.3d 315, 320-321 (5th Cir. 2002) (applying Texas law); In re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation, 284 F. Supp.2d 511, 644 (S.D. Tex. 2003); Gyarmathy & Assoc., Inc. v. TIG Insurance Co., 2003 WL 21339279, at *3 n.6 (N.D. Tex. June 3, 2003); McNamara v. Bre-X Minerals Ltd., 197 F. Supp.2d 622, 698 (E.D. Tex. 2001); Florida Dept. of Insurance v. Chase Bank National Ass’n, 2001 WL 124951, at *4-5 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2001), aff’d, 274 F.3d 924 (5th Cir. 2001); Griffin v. GK Intelligent Systems, Inc., 87 F. Supp.2d 684, 690 (S.D. Tex. 1999); Zuckerman v. Foxmeyer Health Corp., 4 F. Supp.2d 618, 628 (N.D. Tex. 1998) (since overruled on various other grounds by various cases); Steiner v. Southmark Corp., 734 F. Supp. 269, 279 (N. D. Tex. 1990), mod. on other grounds, 739 F. Supp. 1087 (N. D. Tex. 1990).

Utah

We didn’t find anything useful along these lines under Utah law.

Vermont

We didn’t find anything useful along these lines under Vermont law.

Virginia

Borow v. nVIEW Corp., 1994 WL 285458, at *2 n* (4th Cir. June 29, 1994) (in table at 27 F.3d 562) (adopting trial court opinion that's not online anywhere) (applying Virginia law).

Washington

In re Metropolitan Securities Litigation, 2009 WL 36776, at *4-5 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 6, 2009).

West Virginia

Basham v. General Shale Products Corp., 1993 WL 65086, at *4 n. 4 (4th Cir. March 10, 1993) (in table at 989 F.2d 491) (applying West Virginia law).

Wisconsin

Staudt v. Artifex, Ltd., 16 F. Supp.2d 1023, 1031 (E.D. Wis. 1998).

Wyoming

We didn’t find anything useful along these lines under Wyoming law.

If you find that we "missed a spot," let us know.  We'll add the case.

No comments: