15 U.S.C. § 77z
Separability
If any provision of this chapter, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid, the remainder of this chapter, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 61
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1935–2025 · leading case: In Re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 294 F. Supp. 2d 392 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
In Re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 294 F. Supp. 2d 392 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “15 U.S.C. § 77z — 1 (a)(3)(B)(iii)(II) (emphasis supplied).”
Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver Cnty. Employees Ret. Fund, 138 S. Ct. 1061 (2018). “15 U. S. C. §77z–2 (1933 Act); §78u–5 (1934 Act).”
Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, 134 S. Ct. 1058 (2014). “It permits defendants to obtain automatic stays of discovery.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Thompson, 238 F. Supp. 3d 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). “See 15 U.S.C. § 77z—2(b)(1) (providing that statutory safe harbor does “not apply to a forward-looking statement .”
In Re Cardinal Health Inc. Sec. Litigations, 426 F. Supp. 2d 688 (S.D. Ohio 2006). “15 U.S.C. §§ 77z — 2(c)(1)(B), 78u-5(c)(l)(B).”
Richman v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc., 274 F.R.D. 473 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “” 15 U.S.C. § 77z — l(a)(B)(iii)(II). (a) Typicality The typicality requirement is satisfied when the claims of the proposed lead plaintiff “arise from the same conduct from which the other class members’ claims and injuries arise.”
In re Cendant Corp. Litig., 182 F.R.D. 144 (D.N.J. 1998). “Thus, the lead plaintiff presumption is rebut-table, 15 U.S.C. § 77z — 1 (a)(3)(B)(iii)(I), and that party’s selection of counsel subject to court approval.”
In re Facebook, Inc., 288 F.R.D. 26 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “15 U.S.C. § 77z — l(a)(3)(B)(iii). Once it is determined who among the movants seeking appointment as lead plaintiff is the presumptive lead plaintiff, the presumption can be rebutted only “upon proof by a member of the purported plaintiff class that the presumptive lead…”
OK Firefighters Pension v. Six Flags Entmt, 58 F.4th 195 (5th Cir. 2023). “3d at 372 (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 77z–2(c)(2), 78u–5(c)(1) (1996)).”
In Re Vivendi Universal, S.A., Sec. Litig., 381 F. Supp. 2d 129 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “15 U.S.C. §§ 77z — 1(b)(1) and 78u-4(b)(3)(B).”
In Re Constellation Energy Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 738 F. Supp. 2d 614 (D. Maryland 2010). “” 15 U.S.C. § 77z—2(i)(l); 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(i)(l).”
In re Giant Interactive Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 279 F.R.D. 151 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “” 15 U.S.C. § 77z~l(a)(4). “Courts in this Circuit routinely award such costs and expenses both to reimburse the named plaintiffs for expenses incurred through their involvement with the action and lost wages, as well as to provide an incentive for such plaintiffs to remain…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.