Cluster 605532

Litig., 496 F.3d 245, 250 (2d Cir.2007) (referring to "the Securities Act's one- and three-year statutes of limitations ” (emphasis added)); In re Ames Dep’t Stores, Inc. Note Litig., 991 F.2d 968, 979 (2d Cir.1993) ("The statute of limitations for claims under §§11 and 12(2) of the Securities Act is set forth in § 13....” (emphasis added)); Finkel v. Stratton Corp., 962 F.2d 169, 173 (2d Cir.1992) (referring to "the two tiered § 13 statute of limitations " (emphasis added))…

Cf. In re Ames Dep’t Stores, Inc. Note Litig., 991 F.2d 968, 980 (2d Cir.1993) (stating that the different concerns of debt and equity holders may call for distinct inquiry notice dates for the two classes of investors).

Cf. In re Ames Dep’t Stores, Inc. Note Litig., 991 F.2d 968, 980 (2d Cir. 1993) (stating that the different concerns of debt and equity holders may call for distinct inquiry notice dates for the two classes of investors).

Stores, Inc. Note Litig., 991 F.2d 968, 980-81 (2d Cir.1993) (holding class action complaint by common stockholders did not serve to put holders of debt securities on notice of their own fraud claims while noting “[tjhere are a lot of stockholder suits out there, so to speak”); Nivram Corp. v. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 840 F.Supp. 243, 249-54 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (holding pendency of three civil actions relating to company’s recapitalization plan were insufficient indicium …

Stores, Inc. Note Litig., 991 F.2d 968, 980-81 (2d Cir.1993) (holding class action complaint by common stockholders did not serve to put holders of debt securities on notice of their own fraud claims while noting "[t]here are a lot of stockholder suits out there, so to speak"); Nivram Corp. v. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 840 F.Supp. 243, 249-54 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (holding pendency of three civil actions relating to company's recapitalization plan were insufficient indicium …

Corp. v. ’21’ Int’l Holdings, Inc., 821 F.Supp. 212, 222 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (citing Armstrong v. McAlpin, 699 F.2d 79, 88 (2d Cir.1983); In re Ames Dep’t Stores, Inc. Note Litig., 991 F.2d 968, 977, 979 (2d Cir.1993)). 63 .

Stores, Inc. Note Litig., 991 F.2d 968, 981 (2d Cir.1993), such a drastic decrease in the value of Infonet’s stock, taken together with the nearly universal negative reports concerning AUCS, should have “raise[d] sufficient suspicion of fraud to cause a reasonable investor to investigate the matter further.” Berry, 175 F.3d at 704 .

In re Ames Department Stores, Inc. Note Litigation, 991 F.2d 968, 980 (2d Cir.1993).

Such a reasonable discovery occurs “when all the facts and circumstances would alert ‘a person of ordinary intelligence to the probability that he has been defrauded.’ ” Sloane Overseas Fund, 941 F.Supp. at 1374 (quoting In re Ames Dep’t Stores, Inc., 991 F.2d 968, 979 (2d Cir.1993)).

In re Ames Department Stores Inc. Note Litigation, 991 F.2d 968, 979 (2d Cir.1993).

While the filing of a class action lawsuit by stockholders does not trigger inquiry notice as to all stockholders as a matter of law, see In re Ames Department Stores, Inc. Note Litigation, 991 F.2d 968, 981 (2d Cir.1993), where the “prior lawsuits ‘specifically concerned the very misrepresentations alleged in the (present) complaint[ ],’ then the prior lawsuits constitute inquiry notice.” Sloane Overseas Fund Ltd. v. Sapiens International Corp., 941 F.Supp. 1369, 1375 (S.D.…

Stores, Inc. Note Litigation, 991 F.2d 968, 979 (2d Cir. 1993).

Cf. In re Ames Dep’t Stores, Inc. Note Litig., 991 F.2d 968, 980 (2d Cir.1993) (genuine issue of fact concerning notice of fraud precluded summary judgment).

Co. v. Hollis, 991 F.2d 968, 979 (2d Cir.1993) (quoting Armstrong v. McAlpin, 699 F.2d 79, 88 (2d Cir.1983)). 6 The plaintiffs subjective beliefs are irrelevant; an objective standard will determine whether plaintiff was on “inquiry notice”.

See In re Ames Dep't Stores, Inc. Note Litig., 991 F.2d 968 , 969-70 n. 1 (2d Cir. 1993). 3 .

See In re Ames Dep’t Stores, Inc. Note Litig., 991 F.2d 968, 974-76 (2d Cir.1993).

See In re Ames Dep’t Stores, Inc. Note Litig., 991 F.2d 968 (2d Cir.1993).

The Third and Fourth Claims Will Not Be Dismissed on Statute of Limitation Grounds The statute of limitations relevant to Section 10(b) claims, 15 U.S.C. § 78i, provides that “[n]o action shall be maintained to enforce any liability created under this section, unless brought within one year after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation and within three years after such violation.” 15 U.S.C. § 78i (1988); see In re Ames Dep’t Stores, Inc. Note Litig., 991 F.2d 9…

The phrase “red flags,” or “storm warnings,” may also describe facts or circum *673 stances that “would suggest to an investor of ordinary intelligence the probability that she has been defrauded.” Frontier Ins., 318 F.3d at 154 (citation omitted); see also Ames Dep’t Stores, 991 F.2d at 981, Complete Mgmt., 153 F.Supp.2d at 337 .-The Second Circuit, for example, has found that a company’s taking three substantial reserve charges over four years should have “alert[ed] any re…

Hupp v. Gray, 500 F.2d 993, 995, 997 (7th Cir.1974); compare In re Ames Department Stores, Inc. Note Litigation, 991 F.2d 968, 979-80 (2d Cir.1993).