1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 75 F.3d
  5. 75 F.3d 801 (1996)
 

SAN LEANDRO EMERGENCY MED. PLAN v. PHILIP MORRIS

No. 97, Docket 95-7156.

75 F.3d 801 (1996)

SAN LEANDRO EMERGENCY MEDICAL GROUP PROFIT SHARING PLAN, Randy Stark, Daniel D. Kleppner, Stuart Wechsler, Craig Aronberg, Rubin Kreis, Irma Kreis, Samuel Spear Pension Plan, Clyde Cutner, The Scotus Fund, Naomi L. Raphael, Martin Offenberg, Susan Burt Collins, as custodian for Katherine M. Collins, Victor Rone, Steven J. Weiss, Irvin Reiss, Alexander Ledonne, Ronald A. Stokley, Trustee F/B/O Marcella L. Cohen U/A Trust dated 2/5/83 and 12/29/89, M.A. Silver, D.C. Silver, Trustee, Lisa F. Cannon Irrevocable Trust dated 12/14/91, F/B/O Lisa F. Cannon, Esther Salsitz Dezube, Lonnie B. Reiver, Robert Thomas Securities in Restricted Reserve Account for the Benefit of Greenwood Financial Services, Inc., John W. Turner, Judith Beldock, George Weisz, Frank Noble, Jane Hillman, and Caren Groffman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIES, INC., Michael A. Miles, William B. Murray, Hans G. Storr, William I. Campbell and Hamish Maxwell, Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Decided January 25, 1996.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Princeton, NJ (Arthur N. Abbey, Judith L. Spanier, Abbey & Ellis, New York City; Melvyn I. Weiss, Sharon Levine Mirsky, Jeffrey S. Abraham, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, New York City; Leonard Barrack, Gerald J. Rodos, Anthony J. Bolognese, Barrack Rodos & Bacine, Philadelphia, PA, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Herbert M. Wachtell, New York City (George T. Conway III, Stuart C. Berman, Dan Himmelfarb, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellees.

Before: NEWMAN, Chief Judge, LUMBARD and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges.

JON O. NEWMAN, Chief Judge:

This appeal concerns the recurring issue of whether a complaint alleging securities fraud is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. More precisely, the issue is whether, under the circumstances of this case, a company has a duty to disclose its consideration of an alternative business plan in order to prevent its prior statements from becoming misleading. The issue arises on an appeal by members of a plaintiff class of shareholders...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases