Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 10.4 kB
Pages: 3
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 468 Words, 2,925 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/9352/123.pdf

Download Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut ( 10.4 kB)


Preview Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:00-cv-00705-CFD

Document 123

Filed 12/21/2004

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : Master File No. 3:00 CV 705 (CFD) : : DECEMBER 21, 2004 :

In re PE Corporation Securities Litigation

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants PE Corporation (now know as Applera Corporation), Tony L. White, Dennis L. Winger and Vikram Jog (collectively "Defendants"), hereby move pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court's April 1, 2003 Order, and the Parties' Rule 26(f) Report, so ordered by the Court on June 12, 2003, for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, dated August 20, 2001. In support of their Motion For Summary Judgment, Defendants state as follows: (i) Plaintiffs cannot identify a false or misleading statement or a material omission in the Prospectus as required by Section 11 and Section 12, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k, 77l(a)(2) (2004); (ii) the statements in the Prospectus challenged by Plaintiffs are protected under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act safe harbor (15 U.S.C. § 77z-2 (2004)) and the "bespeaks caution" doctrine; (iii) Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that Defendants are "sellers" under Section 12; and (iv) Plaintiffs Section 15 claim is deficient as a matter of law because Plaintiffs' cannot demonstrate a violation of Section 11 or 12 (15 U.S.C. § 77o (2004)).

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Case 3:00-cv-00705-CFD

Document 123

Filed 12/21/2004

Page 2 of 3 2

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in Defendants' accompanying memorandum of law, Local Rule 56(a)(1) Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue to be Tried, and the exhibits thereto, Defendants respectfully request the Court grant the Motion For Summary Judgment.

DEFENDANTS PE CORPORATION, TONY L. WHITE, DENNIS L. WINGER and VIKRAM JOG

By: ________________________________ Stanley A. Twardy, Jr. (ct05096) Thomas D. Goldberg (ct04836) Terence J. Gallagher (ct22415) Day, Berry & Howard LLP One Canterbury Green Stamford, CT 06901 phone: (203) 977-7300 fax: (203) 977-7301 e-mail: [email protected] Michael J. Chepiga (ct01173) Robert A. Bourque (ct05269) William M. Regan (ct25100) Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 phone: (212) 455-2000 fax: (212) 455-2502 e-mail: [email protected] Their Attorneys

Case 3:00-cv-00705-CFD

Document 123

Filed 12/21/2004

Page 3 of 3 3

CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent by first class mail this 21st day of December, 2004, to:

J. Daniel Sagarin, Esq. Hurwitz & Sagarin, LLC 147 N. Broad Street P.O. Box 112 Milford, CT 06460 Liaison Counsel

Sanford P. Dumain, Esq. Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP One Penn Plaza ­ 49th Floor New York, NY 10119 Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

_____________________________ Terence J. Gallagher