In Dinnen v. Kneen, No. 16–cv–00882–PAB–STV, 2017 BL 332704 (D. Colo. Sept. 19, 2017), the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted PdC, LLC, Timothy Kneen, Michael Roberts, Timothy Flaherty, and Carl Vertuca (“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss, finding that Michael W. DInnen’s (“Plaintiff”) Amended Complaint failed to sufficiently allege scienter in their Section 10(b) claim under the heightened pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”). According to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants made false and misleading statements, which led Plaintiff to invest in a luxury real estate project in Mexico. Plaintiff identified five broad categories that he alleged are considered misrepresentations from …show more content…
Therefore, the court evaluated the facts the Plaintiff provided and evaluated if they support a reasonable belief that the Defendants’ statements were misleading. The court held that (1) Defendants statement that Plaintiff would double his money is mere puffery and no reasonable investor would rely on such representations; (2) the table of financial projections must be viewed only as “estimates” and not binding, which do not demonstrate fraudulent intent; (3) the e-mail was not sent to Plaintiff. Therefore, it is not relevant to Plaintiff’s claim; (4) Because Defendants could not have disclosed the ongoing litigation at the time Plaintiff made first investment, Defendants did not violate the securities laws by failing to inform Plaintiff of litigation; (5) documents given to Plaintiff prior to investment expressly acknowledged potential challenges with respect to permitting. The false statements related to permits were not sent to Plaintiff before his decision to invest. Therefore, those misrepresentations are not actionable under the provisions of the Exchange act relied upon by the
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
The defense’s argument that Abigail’s offer did not specify a particular a purebred was not upheld by the jury. Alex thought that he was getting a Chihuahua, or at least a purebred dog. “Such a misrepresentation is one that is likely to induce a reasonable person to assent to a contract” (Twomey & Jennings, p. 273). By delivering a dog that did not reasonably fit within the slightest specifications of a purebred, Abigail blatantly disregarded the contract between she and Alex. Her ad stated that she was selling “purebred toy breed puppies”, not a mix bred (mutt) and definitely not a full size dog, which is what Alex later found out to be the dog he received. The plaintiff was in fact harmed by Abigail’s actions in the form of having paid money in good faith that she would uphold her half of the agreement. The fact that Alex accepted the puppy from Abigail and now has an attachment to the dog, does not excuse Abigail’s actions, nor does it acquit her of any wrongdoing. The plaintiff has established the four elements of
Andrea may decide not to inform the limited partners about the misrepresentation of Skyline Views’s financial statements; to avoid conflict, this decision permits Ed to deceive the company and limited partners. In addition, by deciding not to inform the limited partners of Ed’s deceit, Andrea would be disregarding the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Code of Professional Conduct in her being unreliable, dishonest and deceitful. Andrea has the responsibility of protecting her client, which involves encouraging the correction of financial statements in order to prevent suspicion during audits that could lead to fines and imprisonment. Andrea’s second option is to inform the limited partners about how misrepresentations of Skyline Views’s financial statements are permitting Ed to claim a higher management fee; this decision will fulfill her due diligence obligation to the limited partners while maintaining her integrity as a certified public accountant in supporting the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Code of Professional Conduct.
The contract between the Alvarez Companies and Laduzinski carried the certain elements of a basic contract since there was an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration. Perez offered plaintiff a position with the Alvarez companies, adding that the company was interested in obtaining plaintiff's contacts to have
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
...d to follow the approach of NSWCA, after considering the reasoning in Dao. Now it is consistent in this issue across NSW and Victoria.
On September 9th, 1993 at around two in the morning, 17 year old Christopher Simmons, 15 year old Charlie Benjamin and 16 year old John Tessmer met at the home of 29 year old Brian Moomey. Moomey drove the three teens to the house of 46 year old Shirley Crook. Tessmer refused to go with them and ended up going back to his house. Simmons and Benjamin went to the back of Shirley Crook’s house, found a window and cracked it open. When they reached though to unlock the back door and entered the house, Simmons turned on the hallway light. The light woke her and she yelled out, “Who’s there?” Simmons walked into her bedroom and told her to get out of bed and lay on the floor. They duct taped her mouth and eyes and wrapped an electrical cord around
The plaintiff, Cigna Health, owned shares of Audax’s Series B Preferred Stock. In 2014, a majority of Audax’s board and 66.9% of the shareholders approved the merger. The shareholders approved the merger via written consent delivered in the form of support agreements, which included a release of any claims against Optum, an agreement to be bound by the terms of the merger agreement, and an appointment of a stockholder representative. Cigna did not vote in favor of the merger and did not sign the support agreement. The merger agreement required surrender of shared and execution of a Letter of Transmittal in order for a shareholder to receive the merger consideration. The Letter of Transmittal contained a separate release obligation that did not appear in the merger agreement but only appeared in the Letter of Transmittal, and required that stockholders surrendering their shares agree to the obligations contained in the merger agreement, which included an indemnification
A party may be deemed to have expended considerable time or money in the circumstance, even if it does not state a precise length of time or dollar value to develop the information. Strata, 740 N.E.2d at 1177; Learning Curve, 342 F.3d at 729 (implicating that “several months and several thousand dollars” of investment could be considerable). In Strata, the plaintiff alleged that its compiled customer list and other confidential information took considerable time and expense without proving the precise dollar amount and length of time expended to create the information. Strata, 740 N.E.2d at 1166. The Strata court stated that plaintiff’s assertion that it took considerable time and expense to compile the customer list could be a valid claim
The duties of a police officer are to ensure that there is maintenance of public peace and order. In order to perform their duties and obligations they require certain powers, authority in order to perform their duties and this extends the power to arrest. This paper focuses on the decision of the court in DPP v Carr, the amendments on Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (LEPRA) section 99 and a critical evaluation of statements made by Sentas and Cowdery.
Farag v. United States involves Tarik Farag, a former New York City police officer, and Amro Elmasry, who worked in Egypt for General Electric. The government argued that their behavior was alarming while aboard a flight from San Diego to JFK New York, when the two men sat on opposite sides of the aisle and spoke to each other over the heads of other passengers in a mixture of Arab and English. Counterterrorism agents felt that this provided probable cause to arrest and detain Frag and Elmasry. Thus, the two men essentially were detained because of their ethnicity. However, the judge ruled that people cannot be detained on these grounds.
Tuttle, Inc., the plaintiff alleged more than the mere existence of publicity surrounding FACTA and the Clarification Act—an allegation applicable to any § 1681c(g) defendant. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant had hired a third-party point-of-sale systems provider that had warned the defendant that upgrades to the point-of-sale system were necessary to comply with FACTA. Instead of making the necessary upgrades, the defendant allegedly “ignored the[] warnings,” then cancelled its contract with the point-of-sale provider. The court concluded that these allegations, in particular, were sufficient to allege a willful violation of FACTA. In this case, the court reasoned, the defendant not only clearly knew of its duty under FACTA, but also knew what actions it should take to bring its receipts into compliance with FACTA, and then chose not to take those actions in order to save money. Accordingly, Zaun provides an example of the kind of allegations that a plaintiff must be prepared to make in order to overcome the more demanding standards established by Twombly and Iqbal. Specifically, plaintiffs would have to plead facts analogous to the damning allegation that the Zaun defendant was specifically warned that it was violating § 1681c(g) and chose to continue to violate FACTA rather than comply to save money. And Zaun is not alone in rigorously applying Iqbal to § 1681c(g)
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
Facts: A number of cases of liquor and a tool and die set were stolen from the bar and storeroom located in the Colony Arms Hotel in Glen Cove. Mr. Lerhinan was staying at a local motel and was several weeks late in payment. According to Chapter 10 in our textbook Hotel Restaurant and Travel Law, “guests rights to exclusive use of the room ends if the guest fails to pay as agreed or if the occupancy period expires” (Cournoyer, 368). The hotel manager entered Mr. Lerhinan’s room with the purpose of collection. When Mr. Lerhinan was found not to be in his motel room the manager decided to move all of his belongings to the basement and re-rent the room. The Chapter 10 states that, “the right to occupy the room reverts from the guest to the innkeeper, who is then entitled to enter the room, prepare it for the next visitor, and remove any remaining property of the guest” (Cournoyer, 368). While collecting Mr. Lerhinan’s belongings he came across the stolen liquor in the defendant’s closets; he immediately called the police. The defendant was arrested the next day and charged with the theft of the stolen items. Mr. Lerhinan moved to suppress the evidence found in the motel room, due to the fact that he claimed that the motel manager violated his fourth amendment to privacy by entering his motel room.
However, owing to the complexity and non-accessibility of the law, very few derivative actions succeeded. Among the reasons as experienced in many jurisdictions would tell us that the costs of the litigations, proceedings and attorneys’ fees relative to this claim can be an alarming obstacle for shareholders suing on behalf of the company. These factors, together with the difficulty of establishing liability and seeking permission to proceed with the c...