Elliott Associates, L.P. v. Hayes

Second Circuit

Elliott Associates, L.P. v. Hayes

26 F. App'x 83

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 18, 2002

DocketDocket No. 01-7078

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 26 F. App'x 83 (Elliott Associates, L.P. v. Hayes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elliott Associates, L.P. v. Hayes, 26 F. App'x 83 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

IN CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiffs Elliott Associates, L.P. and Westgate International, L.P. appeal from the district court’s dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) of their claims alleging violations of (1) § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b); (2) Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, and (3) § 20(a) of the 1935 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a). The complaint alleges that defendants committed actionable fraud because they intended, at the time of executing their investment agreement with plaintiffs, not to honor their contractual obligation of allowing an “absolute and unconditional” right to convert preferred shares into common shares.

We agree with the district court that the complaint failed to allege particular facts supporting a strong inference of fraudulent intent. As a result, it failed to satisfy the requirement of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

IN CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiffs Elliott Associates, L.P. and Westgate International, L.P. appeal from the district court’s dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) of their claims alleging violations of (1) § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b); (2) Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, and (3) § 20(a) of the 1935 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a). The complaint alleges that defendants committed actionable fraud because they intended, at the time of executing their investment agreement with plaintiffs, not to honor their contractual obligation of allowing an “absolute and unconditional” right to convert preferred shares into common shares.

We agree with the district court that the complaint failed to allege particular facts supporting a strong inference of fraudulent intent. As a result, it failed to satisfy the requirement of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 F. App'x 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-associates-lp-v-hayes-ca2-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack