Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al v. Goldman Sachs & Co, No. 1:2011cv05484 - Document 31 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs federal securities fraud claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, is granted with lea ve to file a Second Amended Complaint by June 5, 2012. A Second Amended Complaint should allege sufficient facts to make it plausible that defendant had ultimate authority over the alleged misrepresentations in the Series Z Offering Circular. In addi tion, a Second Amended Complaint should state with particularity the facts that show that defendant intentionally misrepresented its knowledge of the capitalization of Freddie Mac or the facts that show that defendant recklessly ignored such knowledge. I reserve decision on defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs state law claims. (Signed by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum on 5/2/2012) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:09-md-02072-MGC, 1:11-cv-05484-MGC(js)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------X LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY, SAFECO CORPORATION, AND LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON, Plaintiffs, -against- MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 11 Civ. 5484 09 MD 2072 GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., Defendant. ----------------------------------X APPEARANCES: ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 800 LaSalle Avenue 2800 LaSalle Plaza Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 By: Thomas B. Hatch, Esq. James R. Safley, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP Attorneys for Defendant 425 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 By: Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. Craig S. Waldman, Esq. (MGC) (MGC) Cedarbaum, J. Defendant s motion to dismiss plaintiffs federal securities fraud claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, is granted with leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by June 5, 2012. A Second Amended Complaint should allege sufficient facts to make it plausible that defendant had ultimate authority over the alleged misrepresentations in the Series Z Offering Circular. In addition, a Second Amended Complaint should state with particularity the facts that show that defendant intentionally misrepresented its knowledge of the capitalization of Freddie Mac or the facts that show that defendant recklessly ignored such knowledge. I reserve decision on defendant s motion to dismiss plaintiffs state law claims. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York May 2, 2012 S/______________________________ MIRIAM GOLDMAN CEDARBAUM United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
