In re Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd. Securities Litigation

Second Circuit

In re Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd. Securities Litigation

533 F. App'x 38

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 3, 2013

Docket13-0511-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 533 F. App'x 38 (In re Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd. Securities Litigation) 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

In re Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd. Securities Litigation, 533 F. App'x 38 (2d Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Forsta AP-Fonden (“Appellant”), the court appointed Lead Plaintiff, appeals the District Court’s January 14, 2013 decision granting the Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ putative class action in its entirety. The Consolidated Securities Class Action Complaint alleges that Defendants-Appellees Agnico-Eagle Mines, Ltd. (“Ag-nico”), Sean Boyd (“Boyd”), 1 and Eberhard Scherkus (“Sherkus”) 2 violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, by knowingly or recklessly issuing false and misleading statements which at first concealed and later misleadingly minimized structural geological risks to Agnico’s operation of its Goldex Mine. The Complaint also asserts a claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a), against Boyd and Scher-kus. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Kleinman v. Elan Corp., plc, 706 F.3d 145, 152 (2d Cir.2013). Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the District Court substantially for the reasons articulated in its thorough opinion of January 14, 2013. See In re Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 11 Civ. 7968, 2013 WL 144041 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2013).

We have examined the remainder of Appellant’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court entered on January 14, 2013.

1

. Agnico's Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO”) at all times relevant to the Complaint.

2

. Agnico’s President and Chief Operating Officer ("COO”) during the Class Period-July 28, 2010 to October 19, 2011.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Forsta AP-Fonden (“Appellant”), the court appointed Lead Plaintiff, appeals the District Court’s January 14, 2013 decision granting the Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ putative class action in its entirety. The Consolidated Securities Class Action Complaint alleges that Defendants-Appellees Agnico-Eagle Mines, Ltd. (“Ag-nico”), Sean Boyd (“Boyd”), 1 and Eberhard Scherkus (“Sherkus”) 2 violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, by knowingly or recklessly issuing false and misleading statements which at first concealed and later misleadingly minimized structural geological risks to Agnico’s operation of its Goldex Mine. The Complaint also asserts a claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a), against Boyd and Scher-kus. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Kleinman v. Elan Corp., plc, 706 F.3d 145, 152 (2d Cir.2013). Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the District Court substantially for the reasons articulated in its thorough opinion of January 14, 2013. See In re Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 11 Civ. 7968, 2013 WL 144041 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2013).

We have examined the remainder of Appellant’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court entered on January 14, 2013.

1

. Agnico's Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO”) at all times relevant to the Complaint.

2

. Agnico’s President and Chief Operating Officer ("COO”) during the Class Period-July 28, 2010 to October 19, 2011.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 F. App'x 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-agnico-eagle-mines-ltd-securities-litigation-ca2-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack