Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Pomerantz November 5

Pomerantz November 5

Ratings: (0)|Views: 288|Likes:
Published by abatevents

More info:

Published by: abatevents on Nov 14, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/02/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKIn re ADVANCED BATTERYTECHNOLOGIES, INC. SECURITIESLITIGATION
::::::
Master File No.: 11 Civ. 2279 (CM)LEAD PLAINTIFF’S COMBINED REPLY MEMORANDUMIN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECONDAMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTPOMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORDDAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
600 Third AvenueNew York, NY 10016Telephone: (212) 661-1100Fax: (212) 661-8665
 Lead Counsel and Proposed Class Counsel
Case 1:11-cv-02279-CM Document 102 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 16
 
 
i
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................. i
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
 
I.
 
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
 
II.
 
ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 2
 
A.
 
Plaintiffs Have Adequately Alleged Scienter As To The AuditorDefendants ..........................................................................................................................2
 
1.
 
Bagell Josephs .............................................................................................................4
 
2.
 
EFP ..............................................................................................................................8
 
B.
 
The Complaint Sufficiently Pleads Loss Causation .........................................................10
 
III.
 
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 11
 
Case 1:11-cv-02279-CM Document 102 Filed 11/05/12 Page 2 of 16
 
 
ii
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASES
 
 Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd 
.,728 F. Supp. 2d 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)................................................................................. 6
 Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo
, 544 U.S. 336 (2005) .................................................................... 10
 In re Advanced Battery Techs., Inc. Sec. Litig.
, No. 11 Civ. 2279,2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123757 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2012) ...................................... 2, 8, 10
 In re Beacon Assoc. Litig.
, 745 F. Supp. 2d 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ................................................. 2
 In re Bear Stearns Cos., Inc. Sec., Deriv., & ERISA Liti
g.,763 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)............................................................................... 10
 In re Doral Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig.
,563 F. Supp. 2d 461(S.D.N.Y. 2008) ............................................................................ 4, 10
 In re J.P. Jeanneret Assocs.,
769 F. Supp. 2d 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) .............................................. 6
 In re MRU Holdings Sec. Litig.
,769 F. Supp. 2d 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)................................................................................. 6
 In re Philip Services Corp. Sec. Litig.
,F. Supp. 2d 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)........................................................................................ 3
 In re Refco, Inc. Sec. Litig.
, 503 F. Supp. 2d 611 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)................................................ 4
 In re Scottish Re Group Sec. Litig.
,524 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)................................................................................. 9
 In re Suprema Specialities, Inc. Sec. Litig.
,438 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2006)............................................................................................... 4
 In re Tremont Secs. Law
,
 
703 F. Supp. 2d 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ................................................... 6
Katz v. Image Innovations Holdings, Inc.
,542 F. Supp. 2d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)................................................................................. 4
Penn Ave. Funds v. Inyx, Inc.
, No. 08 Civ. 6857,2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19177 (S.D.N.Y.) ......................................................................... 9
 Roth v. Jennings
, 489 F.3d 499 (2d Cir. 2007) ............................................................................... 7
 Rothman v. Gregor 
, 220 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2000)............................................................................. 6
Case 1:11-cv-02279-CM Document 102 Filed 11/05/12 Page 3 of 16

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
Alankar Gupta added this note
Thanks for sharing. Truth always wins. Sometimes it takes a little time. I appreciate your emails. I am holding. Alankar
AnatoleGeiche liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->