-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Background: Overview of securities fraud actions under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5[edit]
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (commonly known as the "Exchange Act" or the "1934 Act") gives shareholders the right to bring a private action in federal court to recover damages the shareholder sustained as a result of securities fraud. The majority of securities fraud claims are brought pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 78j), as well as SECRule 10b-5, which the SEC promulgated under the authority granted to it by Congress under the Exchange Act. (This article refers to federal securities fraud actions as "Rule 10b-5 actions" or "Rule 10b-5 cases" as convenient shorthand.)The Supreme Court has held that there are six elements that a plaintiff must allege and prove in order to prevail in a Rule 10b-5 action:
1. The defendant made a "material misrepresentation or omission";
2. the defendant acted with "scienter", or a "wrongful state of mind" (typically understood to mean that the defendant intended to make the material misrepresentation or omission, or acted with recklessness in making the misrepresentation or omission);
3. the material misrepresentation or omission was made "in connection with the purchase or sale of a security";
4. the plaintiff who was allegedly victimized by the fraud relied upon the material misrepresentation or omission (if the security is traded on a public stock exchange, such as the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ, the law will typically presume that shareholders rely on the integrity of the market, and therefore that the price of the stock reflected material misrepresentation and that shareholders relied upon the integrity of the market);
5. the plaintiff suffered an economic loss as a result of the alleged fraud; and
6. the plaintiff can allege and prove "loss causation", which means that the allegedly fraudulent misrepresentation or omission caused the plaintiff's economic loss. See Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005).
Each of these elements has been heavily litigated in thousands of cases over the past 70 years, and the courts have applied these six elements in a multitude of different factual situations.
Last edited:
dmckinstry
Model X 2019
I'd be willing to send $100 also. We just need someone we all trust to controll the funds.
Bonnie? You, or any suggestions?
Tesla Lawsuit
Ambulance Chaser Files Lawsuit after 3rd fire.
I suppose it was inevitable. It would shock me if they got 0.1% of the customer base to sign up. Unfortunately, they don't need many to get certified as a class. I predict dismal failure of this lawsuit.
I could pen a diatribe about what is wrong with this country but think it's just not worth it.
Ambulance Chaser Files Lawsuit after 3rd fire.
I suppose it was inevitable. It would shock me if they got 0.1% of the customer base to sign up. Unfortunately, they don't need many to get certified as a class. I predict dismal failure of this lawsuit.
I could pen a diatribe about what is wrong with this country but think it's just not worth it.
Botbldr45
Member
...................aren't they the firm that sued MickeyD's for having hot coffee that burns you if you are stupid enough to pour it on yourself?
covered in this thread http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...Grossman-Hufford-Dahlstrom-amp-Gross-LLP-quot
NigelM
Recovering Member
Discussion on this already in the Short-Term-TSLA-Price-Movements thread, also in the Ugh-Another-Model-S-fire-2013-11-06 thread.
Focused response thread here - A-Class-Action-Lawsuit-AGAINST-Pomerantz-Grossman-Hufford-Dahlstrom-&-Gross-LLP
Focused response thread here - A-Class-Action-Lawsuit-AGAINST-Pomerantz-Grossman-Hufford-Dahlstrom-&-Gross-LLP
I made a cursory check of some the crowd-funding sites. In my opinion they leave something to be desired in terms of fiduciary responsibility. That said it would have to be someone with a great deal of trust. Maybe someone who would be willing to be the lead plaintiff.
What is the role of the lead plaintiff in a securities fraud class action?
A lead plaintiff is a shareholder or group of shareholders appointed by the court to represent the interests of a class or classes of similarly situated shareholders. The lead plaintiff in a securities class action usually, but not always, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. Lead plaintiff designation can be granted to individuals, groups of individuals, or entities, such as institutional investors and investment fund fiduciaries. The lead plaintiff selects and retains counsel to represent the class.
No way - they are too classless for that (ironic given they specialize in class-action suits). In fact, the McDonald's coffee case was legitimate - the elderly woman was hospitalized with third degree burns, and upon discovery it turned out that McDonald's had received many complaints about coffee being too hot and burning but had ignored them. McDonald's and their media handlers spun this as a joke, but she was seriously injured - the burn photos turn one's stomach. She didn't sue, just asked McDonald's for payment for medical expenses, and after they blew her off the family decided to sue. There is a documentary on the case and several others, called appropriately Hot Coffee: HOT COFFEE, a documentary feature film
From the site:
Seinfeld mocked it. Letterman ranked it in his top ten list. And more than fifteen years later, its infamy continues. Everyone knows the McDonald’s coffee case. It has been routinely cited as an example of how citizens have taken advantage of America’s legal system, but is that a fair rendition of the facts? Hot Coffee reveals what really happened to Stella Liebeck, the Albuquerque woman who spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonald’s, while exploring how and why the case garnered so much media attention, who funded the effort and to what end. After seeing this film, you will decide who really profited from spilling hot coffee.
“Eye-opening indictment of the way big business spins the media.” —Variety
“Stunning debut … Sends audiences out of the theater thinking in a brand new way.” —Washington Post
“Entertaining, informative … vividly illuminating.” —Hollywood Reporter
Last edited:
i think this forum needs to consult a lawyer before going further. 2 things: 1. proving damages is gonna difficult. TSLA stock going down because the suit? or fire? or ER? a percentage? 50%? 20% 1%? 2. Standing: as individual share holders, you may not have standing to counter sue the lawyers who are suing TSLA the company.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Exactly. At the time I too was outraged as most people over this "frivolous" lawsuit, but unlike most people I took the time to actually look into it. No drink should cause third degree burns. Well, maybe a flaming shot, but you're just asking for it at that point.
Reading about the McDonalds coffee case some years ago pretty much turned me off that brand of burgers (if you pardon the bad taste pun) for the foreseeable. Not funny. Uncool. Letterman can ... think of my reaction on his own.
As to this particular firetruck chaser, I kind of despair over the American judicial system. Not the first time either.
As to this particular firetruck chaser, I kind of despair over the American judicial system. Not the first time either.
RoverS
Banned
i am contemplating suing myself for driving a Tesla. however the lawsuit comes out, i'll be #winning.
NigelM
Recovering Member
Worth noting that the forum itself (TMC) would have no standing in a potential suit, so if anything were to come of the idea behind this thread it would have to be organized by a group of individuals. Just want to make sure nobody would think they should be waiting on Mods to take this further.
Alfafoxtrot1
Member
Shareholder Suit Against Tesla
Like many of you, I own a model S and stock and this baseless suit really pisses me off. Although I'm a lawyer I know very little about Class Actions or derrivative actions. However, I think our first step should involve putting a stake in their dreams of making this a viable class action. Hopefully a fellow member can tell us how to opt out of the suit and make life a little tougher for the attorneys and plaintiff who filed this garbage. As for suit against the firm, I'm pretty skeptical about that working out.
Like many of you, I own a model S and stock and this baseless suit really pisses me off. Although I'm a lawyer I know very little about Class Actions or derrivative actions. However, I think our first step should involve putting a stake in their dreams of making this a viable class action. Hopefully a fellow member can tell us how to opt out of the suit and make life a little tougher for the attorneys and plaintiff who filed this garbage. As for suit against the firm, I'm pretty skeptical about that working out.
Last edited:
is this a different shareholder class action suit that was just filed by another company against Tesla? Brower Piven? That's unrelated to Pomerantz, right?
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20131112-910376.html?dsk=y
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20131112-910376.html?dsk=y
FWIW, my wife (the lawyer in the family) thinks that legal action against Pomerantz will go nowhere. The whole point of the legal system is to give people their day in court. If such pre-emotive counter suits could be made preemptive lay, there would be no patent trolls. There are patent trolls, ergo we have no chance.
Similar threads
