Depot backdating Free chat with porn star without credit card

¶ 84, the amended complaint does not explain who wrote it, how it was distributed to employees, or who received it.

Notably, the amended complaint does not cite or quote from the memo itself.Rather than defend the existing complaints (which it presumably had no part in drafting), Bucks County filed a 150-page Amended Class Action Complaint, which became the operative pleading in all five cases. The amended complaint also asserts that the individual defendants are liable for the § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 violations by Home Depot, Inc., because they qualify as “control persons” under § 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U. Confidential Witnesses Six confidential witnesses are cited in the amended complaint.The amended complaint is a putative class action on behalf of every shareholder who purchased Home Depot stock between May 29, 2001 and February 22, 2005 (the “class period”). The most important is “CW1,” who was the Director of Home Depot's Northwest Division from 1997 through 2003. The question presented in this appeal is whether lead plaintiff Bucks County Retirement Board's (“Bucks County's”) Amended Class Action Complaint (“ACAC” or “amended complaint”) against Home Depot, Inc. Under these provisions, a securities fraud claim based on failure to reveal information to investors, as Bucks County has alleged here, has six elements: (1) a material misrepresentation or omission; (2) made with scienter; (3) a connection with the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance on the misstatement or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) a causal connection between the material misrepresentation or omission and the loss, commonly called “loss causation.” Dura Pharms., Inc. Therefore, the pivotal issue in this case remains whether Bucks County adequately pleaded a violation of § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Notably, Rule 9(b) does not require a plaintiff to allege specific facts related to the defendant's state of mind when the allegedly fraudulent statements were made. These are just two reasons why courts may be skeptical of confidential sources cited in securities fraud complaints; there are likely others. As our discussion of the applicable law makes clear, a court examining a motion to dismiss under the PSLRA must carefully examine the complaint to determine whether the allegations, taken as a whole, create a cogent and compelling inference that the named defendants acted with the requisite scienter. To survive a motion to dismiss under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the factual allegations contained in a private securities fraud class action complaint must raise a “strong inference,” one that is “cogent and compelling,” that the named defendants acted with the requisite scienter. See, e.g., Garfield, 466 F.3d at 1261; Theoharous, 256 F.3d at 1227. 8(a)(2)'s requirement of “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” But securities fraud claims, like other types of fraud claims, have always been subject to Fed. Cascade Int'l, Inc., 256 F.3d 1194, 1202 (11th Cir.2001)). For another, lying to the police or to law enforcement in general will likely lead to much harsher consequences than lying to a plaintiff's attorney, so statements by confidential police informants may be more reliable than conversations between plaintiffs' attorneys and whistleblowers.The amended complaint's allegations regarding their statements include the following:• CW2 worked as an RTV clerk “directly responsible for processing RTV chargebacks” at three Home Depot stores in New York State from August 1999 to May 2001. ¶ 61, and he estimated that 30%-40% of the chargebacks were fraudulent.


Leave a Reply