In Re Razorfish, Inc. Securities Litigation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting proposed co-lead plaintiff appointment because “there is nothing to suggest that they will collectively ride herd on counsel anywhere as well as could a single sophisticated entity”
• rejecting proposed group because it “is simply an artifice cobbled together by cooperating counsel for the obvious purpose of creating a large enough grouping of investors to qualify as ‘lead plaintiff’”
• “To allow an aggregation of unrelated plaintiffs to serve as lead plaintiffs defeats the purpose of choosing a lead plaintiff.” (citation omitted)
• “[T]he context and structure of the PSLRA evince an intent that a ‘group’ consist of more than a mere assemblage of unrelated persons who share nothing in common other than the twin fortuities that (1
• court refused to appoint “artifice” of four unrelated institutional and individual investors “cobbled together by cooperating counsel for the obvious purpose of creating a large enough grouping of investors to qualify as ‘lead plaintiff ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• In Re: Cendant Corporation Litigation
  Third Circuit· 1992-02-11· cited 465×
• Unnamed case
  Third Circuit· 2001-08-17· cited 370×
• Hevesi v. Citigroup Inc.
  Second Circuit· 2004-05-07· cited 123×
• Varghese v. China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 2008-12-10· cited 102×
• In re eSpeed, Inc. Securities Litigation
  S.D. New York· 2005-07-13· cited 93×
• In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation
  S.D. New York· 2002-12-27· cited 86×
• Khunt v. Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.
  S.D. New York· 2015-05-01· cited 63×
• In re Independent Energy Holdings PLC Securities Litigation
  S.D. New York· 2002-05-28· cited 38×
• In re Nyse Specialists Securities Litigation
  S.D. New York· 2007-02-26· cited 33×
• In re Cardinal Health, Inc.
  S.D. Ohio· 2005-01-26· cited 29×
• Janbay v. Canadian Solar, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 2010-12-22· cited 29×
• Smith v. Suprema Specialties, Inc.
  D. New Jersey· 2002-07-01· cited 28×
• Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund v. Credit-Based Asset Servicing & Securitization, LLC
  S.D. New York· 2009-05-26· cited 27×
• In re Petrobras Securities Litigation
  S.D. New York· 2015-05-17· cited 25×
• Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan v. Bank of America Corp.
  S.D. New York· 2011-06-20· cited 22×
• In re Gemstar—TV Guide International, Inc. Securities Litigation
  C.D. California· 2002-08-09· cited 17×
• In re Pfizer Inc. Securities Litigation
  S.D. New York· 2005-10-21· cited 16×
• In re Cable & Wireless, PLC
  E.D. Virginia· 2003-04-21· cited 15×
• In re Flight Safety Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation
  D. Connecticut· 2005-10-19· cited 11×
• In re Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetler, A.S. Securities Litigation
  S.D. New York· 2002-08-22· cited 10×

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
  Supreme Court· 1997-06-25· cited 4,991×
• Continental Illinois Securities Litigation v. Continental Illinois Corporation
  Seventh Circuit· 1992-05-22· cited 279×
• In re Oxford Health Plans Inc., Securities Litigation
  S.D. New York· 1998-07-15· cited 119×
• In re Donnkenny Inc. Securities Litigation
  S.D. New York· 1997-04-02· cited 79×
• In re Cendant Corp. Litigation
  D. New Jersey· 1998-09-08· cited 76×
• In Re Telxon Corp. Securities Litigation
  N.D. Ohio· 1999-08-25· cited 67×
• Aronson v. McKesson HBOC, Inc.
  N.D. California· 1999-11-02· cited 44×
• Weltz v. Lee
  S.D. New York· 2001-03-07· cited 31×
• In re Lucent Technologies, Inc., Securities Litigation
  D. New Jersey· 2000-04-26· cited 29×
• Sherleigh Associates LLC v. Windmere-Durable Holdings, Inc.
  S.D. Florida· 1999-03-09· cited 16×