Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 17.3 kB
Pages: 4
Date: October 8, 2004
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 484 Words, 3,096 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/22526/40-1.pdf

Download Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut ( 17.3 kB)


Preview Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:03-cv-00409-DJS

Document 40

Filed 10/08/2004

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT JOEL MENKES, Individually and on Behalf of ) All Others Similarly Situated, ) ) Plaintiff(s), ) ) vs. ) ) STOLT-NIELSEN S.A., JACOB STOLT) NIELSEN, NIELS G. STOLT-NIELSEN, ) SAMUEL COOPERMAN, and REGINALD ) J.R. LEE, Defendant(s). Case No. 3:03CV409 (DJS)

LEAD PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

OCTOBER 8, 2004

Case 3:03-cv-00409-DJS

Document 40

Filed 10/08/2004

Page 2 of 4

NOW COME Lead Plaintiffs, Irene Rucker and Gustav Rucker, and give this Court notice of supplemental authority in support of his notice. Lead Plaintiffs state as follows: 1. On December 11, 2003, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Memorandum of Law in

Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint. [DK #33] (cited as "Plts.' Br. at __"). 2. On September 29, 2000, the Southern District of New York issued its opinion and

order in Wagner v. Barrick Gold Corp. ("Barrick"), 03CV43021 (cited as "Barrick, Order at __"). Barrick denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss securities-fraud allegations related to federal anti-trust conduct. 3. 4. A true and correct copy of the Barrick order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Lead Plaintiffs submit this notice of supplemental authority to aid the Court in

resolving defendants' motion to dismiss. 5. Barrick rejected defendants' arguments that material misstatements or omissions

about anti-trust conduct are not actionable under the federal securities laws. See Barrick, Order at 19-22. 6. Lead Plaintiffs addressed this same issue in their brief. See Plts.' Br. at 10-17.

1

Case 3:03-cv-00409-DJS

Document 40

Filed 10/08/2004

Page 3 of 4

DATED: October 8, 2004

SCOTT + SCOTT, LLC _/s/ Erin Green Comite_____________________ DAVID R. SCOTT (FEDERAL BAR NO. CT16080) ERIN GREEN COMITE (FEDERAL BAR NO. CT24886) 108 Norwich Avenue Post Office Box 192 Colchester, CT -6415 (860) 537-3818 (tel) (860) 537-4432 (fax) [email protected] [email protected] Liaison Counsel

LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 200 Broadhollow Road ­ Suite 406 Melville, NY 11747 (631) 367-7100 (tel) (631) 367-1173 (fax) Lead Counsel

2

Case 3:03-cv-00409-DJS

Document 40

Filed 10/08/2004

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 8th day of October 2004, I caused a true copy of Lead Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority to be sent via U.S. mail to the following parties: Donna Nelson Heller Patrick J. McHugh FINN DIXON & HERLING One Landmark Square ­ Suite 1400 Stamford, CT 06901 Christopher M. Curran J. Mark Gidley Jaime Crowe Peter J. Carney WHITE & CASE 601 Thirteenth Street, NW ­ Suite 600 South Washington, DC 20005

Counsel for Defendants Samuel H. Rudman David A. Rosenfeld LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 200 Broadhollow Road ­ Suite 406 Melville, NY 11747 Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

_/s/_________________________________ Erin Green Comite
I:\Stolt - Nielsen (S) 23074\Pld\LP NOT Supplemental Authority.doc

1