Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Deka Int'l S.A. Luxemborg v. Genzyme Corp., 1st Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals issued a corrected opinion in a securities litigation case involving Genzyme Corporation. The corrections involved replacing instances of allegedly misleading, earlier positive, would have preferred, Geel and Allston facility, Plaintiffs' also assert, post judgment, and abuse it's discretion with allegedly misleading, defendants' earlier positive, plaintiffs would have preferred, Geel and Allston facilities, Plaintiffs also assert, post-judgment, and abuse its discretion respectively to accurately reflect the court's opinion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-06-09 Precedential Status: Errata Docket: 13-1085

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals issued a corrected opinion in a securities litigation case involving Genzyme Corporation. The corrections involved replacing instances of allegedly misleading, earlier positive, would have preferred, Geel and Allston facility, Plaintiffs' also assert, post judgment, and abuse it's discretion with allegedly misleading, defendants' earlier positive, plaintiffs would have preferred, Geel and Allston facilities, Plaintiffs also assert, post-judgment, and abuse its discretion respectively to accurately reflect the court's opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views2 pages

    Deka Int'l S.A. Luxemborg v. Genzyme Corp., 1st Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals issued a corrected opinion in a securities litigation case involving Genzyme Corporation. The corrections involved replacing instances of allegedly misleading, earlier positive, would have preferred, Geel and Allston facility, Plaintiffs' also assert, post judgment, and abuse it's discretion with allegedly misleading, defendants' earlier positive, plaintiffs would have preferred, Geel and Allston facilities, Plaintiffs also assert, post-judgment, and abuse its discretion respectively to accurately reflect the court's opinion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    United States Court of Appeals

    For the First Circuit


    No. 13-1085
    IN RE: GENZYME CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION,

    DEKA INTERNATIONAL S.A. LUXEMBOURG; CITY OF EDINBURGH


    COUNCIL AS ADMINISTERING AUTHORITY OF THE LOTHIAN PENSION
    FUND; GOVERNMENT OF GUAM RETIREMENT FUND,
    Plaintiffs, Appellants,
    VIVIAN OH, individually and on behalf of all other
    similarly situated; JON RAHN, individually and on behalf
    of all others similarly situated;
    GENZYME INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS,
    Plaintiffs,
    v.
    GENZYME CORPORATION; HENRI A. TERMEER; DAVID P. MEEKER;
    MICHAEL S. WYZGA; ALLISON LAWTON; MARK R. BAMFORTH;
    GEOFFREY MCDONOUGH,
    Defendants, Appellees.

    ERRATA SHEET
    The opinion of this Court issued on June 5, 2014, is amended
    as follows:
    On page 20, line 20: replace "defendants's
    misleading" with "defendants' allegedly misleading"

    allegedly

    On page 23, line 10: replace "defendants earlier positive"


    with "defendants' earlier positive"
    On page 23, line 16: replace "plaintiffs'
    preferred" with "plaintiffs would have preferred"

    would

    have

    On page 25, line 16: replace "Geel and Allston facility" with
    "Geel and Allston facilities"
    On page 29, line 13: replace "Plaintiffs' also assert" with
    "Plaintiffs also assert"
    On page 33, line 15: replace "post judgment" with "postjudgment"
    On page 36, line 18: replace "abuse it's discretion" with
    "abuse its discretion"

    -2-

    You might also like