Freidus v. ING Groep, N.V.

Second Circuit

Freidus v. ING Groep, N.V.

601 F. App'x 59

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 5, 2015

DocketNo. 12-4514-cv

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 601 F. App'x 59 (Freidus v. ING Groep, N.V.) 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

Freidus v. ING Groep, N.V., 601 F. App'x 59 (2d Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

After our decision in Freidus v. ING Groep, N.V., 543 Fed.Appx. 93 (2d Cir.2013), Plaintiffs-Appellants Marshall Frei-dus, and Ray Ragan, and Movant-Appel-lant Belmont Holdings Corporation, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, vacated the decision of this Court and remanded for “further consideration in light of Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Industry Pension Fund, 575 U.S. - [135 S.Ct. 1318, — L.Ed.2d -] (2015).” See Freidus v. ING Groep, N.V, - U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1698, - L.Ed.2d -, 2015 WL 1400851 (U.S. March 30, 2015).

We now VACATE that part of the judgment of the district court as pertains to the September 2007 securities offering and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment in all other respects.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

After our decision in Freidus v. ING Groep, N.V., 543 Fed.Appx. 93 (2d Cir.2013), Plaintiffs-Appellants Marshall Frei-dus, and Ray Ragan, and Movant-Appel-lant Belmont Holdings Corporation, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, vacated the decision of this Court and remanded for “further consideration in light of Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Industry Pension Fund, 575 U.S. - [135 S.Ct. 1318, — L.Ed.2d -] (2015).” See Freidus v. ING Groep, N.V, - U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1698, - L.Ed.2d -, 2015 WL 1400851 (U.S. March 30, 2015).

We now VACATE that part of the judgment of the district court as pertains to the September 2007 securities offering and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment in all other respects.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

601 F. App'x 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freidus-v-ing-groep-nv-ca2-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack