Epstein Secrets

Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 652 F.3d 333, 338 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on defendant); Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 119 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir. 1997) ("circumstances may be so suspicious as to suggest to a reasonably prudent plaintiff that the d

identified separately in the complaint," its application is "limited to group-published documents," and "does not apply to oral statements"); In re Braskem S.A. Sec. Litig., 2017 WL 1216592, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2017) ("the Court has doubt whether the group-pleading doctrine remains good law"). A small sa

nc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 652 F.3d 333, 338 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on defendant); Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 119 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir. 1997) ("circumstances may be so suspicious as to suggest to a reasonably prudent plaintiff that the d

identified separately in the complaint," its application is "limited to group-published documents," and "does not apply to oral statements"); In re Braskem S.A. Sec. Litig., 2017 WL 1216592, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2017) ("the Court has doubt whether the group-pleading doctrine remains good law"). Defendants

Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 652 F.3d 333, 338 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on defendant); Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 119 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir. 1997) ("circumstances may be so suspicious as to suggest to a reasonably prudent plaintiff that the d

identified separately in the complaint," its application is "limited to group-published documents," and "does not apply to oral statements"); In re Braskem S.A. Sec. Litig., 2017 WL 1216592, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2017) ("the Court has doubt whether the group-pleading doctrine remains good law"). The Compla