Granting plaintiff's motion to freeze assets would set a dangerous precedent. Indeed, federal courts have routinely rejected such intrusive motions for over a century. Plaintiff lacks standing at the outset to conduct any proceedings in this case.
He has failed to demonstrate showing of irreparable harm (i.e., that the Individual Defendants have dissipated or transferred or intend to dissipate or transfer their personal assets so as to avoid payment of any judgment). Neither the federal securities laws nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure condone such an abusive tactic. PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING TO BRING THIS MOTION OR TO CONDUCT ANY PROCEEDINGS. must contain information that a reasonable person would consider to be material in making an informed, intelligent decision .
Plaintiff Has Failed to Show That He Is Likely to Be Entitled to the Equitable Relief of a Constructive Trust .
PLAINTIFF HAS NOT MET THE STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FREEZING THE PERSONAL ASSETS OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS .
Instead, this is a "garden variety" Rule 10b-5 securities fraud case with pendent state claims in which plaintiff is entitled evidence that rises above the level of speculation and innuendo, or to demonstrate that a freeze is necessary to preserve "his" property from diversion. First, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to a final equitable remedy, which is a necessary prerequisite to the provisional remedy of an asset freeze. As explained below, neither California's attachment law (Cal.
This is a case where the Court is presented with substantial evidence of both wrongdoing and the very real threat of asset diversion and secretion. This motion also should be denied on the merits because it lacks any legal or factual foundation. § 483.010(a)), nor the applicable federal securities laws (Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U. , 668 F.2d at 1112 (attachment is appropriate provisional remedy for action at law).
Plaintiff Has Failed to Demonstrate a Significant Threat of Irreparable Injury .
Plaintiff Has Failed to Show That the Balance of Hardships Tips, Sharply or Otherwise, in His Favor .
Plaintiff Has No Standing to Assert the Derivative Claims Because He Was Not a Shareholder at the Time of the Complained of Transactions .
Section 21D(a)(3)(A) provides in relevant part: (3) APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF. -- (i) IN GENERAL--Not later than 20 days after the date on which the complaint is filed, the plaintiff or plaintiffs shall cause to be published, or wire service, a notice advising members of the purported plaintiff class -- (I) of the pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the purported class period; and (II) that, not later than 60 days after the date on which the notice is published, any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class. The federal courts have long held in the class action context that notice to purported class members must contain meaningful information.
By simply pleading fraud by hindsight, plaintiff's attorneys not only could burden a corporate defendant ____________________ find plaintiff "most adequate" because of his negligible interest in the company and the presumption in The Reform Act that the most adequate plaintiff "has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class." Section 27(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(bb), to be codified at 15 U. The Reform Act establishes new procedures for the appointment of the lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Moreover, three sentences, one of which simply identifies plaintiff's counsel, hardly meets federal notice requirements.
Plaintiff Must Satisfy a High Standard to Obtain a Preliminary Injunction That Freezes Assets .
Plaintiff's "Evidence" Is Legally Incompetent and Woefully Inadequate .
) ______________________________) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I.