Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Stanley et al
| Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi |
| Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Capital I Inc, Morgan Stanley & Co Incorporated, MCGraw-Hill Companies Inc, Moody's Corp., Anthony B. Tufariello, William J. Forsell, Valerie H. Kay, Steven S. Stern, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL, Morgan Stanley Mortage Loan Trust 2006-5AR, Morgan Stanley Mortage Loan Trust 2006-5ARW, Morgan Stanley Mortage Loan Trust 2006-6AR, Mortage Stanley Mortage Loan Trust 2006-7, Morgan Stanley Mortage Loan Trust 2006-8AR, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-9AR, Morgan Stanley Mortage Loan Trust 2006-10SL, Morgan Stanley Mortage Loan Trust 2006-11, Morgan Stanley Mortage Loan Trsut 2006-12XS, Morgan Stanley Mortage Loan Trust 2006-13AX, Morgan Stanley Mortage Loan Trust 2006-14SL, Morgan Stanley Mortage Loan Trust 2006-15XS, Miorgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-16AX, Morgan Stanley Mortage Loan Trust 2006-7, Morgan Stanley Mortage Loan Trust 2006-9AR, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10SL, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-11, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-12XS, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13AX, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-14SL, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-15XS and Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-16AX |
| 1:2009cv02137 |
| March 9, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Securities/Commodities Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Laura Taylor Swain |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 15:77 Securities Fraud |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
284
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Defendants' motion for reconsideration is granted. The September Order is vacated. New Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in their entirety as time-barred by the Section 13 statute of repose, insofar as they are asserted directly by New Plaintiffs as named parties. The dismissal of New Plaintiffs' claims is without prejudice to the litigation of those claims by one or more class representatives if MissPERS's pending motion for class certification i s granted. The parties are directed to file any supplemental papers in connection with their class certification motion submissions by June 15, 2014. re: (222 in 1:09-cv-02137-LTS-SN) MOTION for Reconsideration of the Court's September 15, 2011 Order (129) holding that new plaintiffs claims are timely filed by Morgan Stanley, David R. Warren, Morgan Stanley & Co Incorporated, Anthony B. Tufariello, Steven S. Stern, Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, William J. Forsell. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 5/27/2014) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:09-cv-02137-LTS-SN, 1:09-cv-04414-LTS (rjm)
|
|
Filing
258
OPINION & ORDER re: 250 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 248 Memorandum & Opinion, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's September 11, 2013 Opinion and Order. MOTION for Reconsideration re; 248 Memorandum & Opinion, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's September 11, 2013 Opinion and Order filed by Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia, Pompano Beach Police and Firefighters' Retirement System, Public E mployees' Retirement System of Mississippi, NECA-IBEW Health and Welfare Fund: For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. This Order resolves the motion pending at Docket No. 250. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 10/23/2013) (tn)
|
|
Filing
249
OPINION & ORDER: This is a securities action brought on behalf of a putative class in which the plaintiffs assert claims relating to the marketing and sale of mortgage-backed security pass-through certificates (the "Certificates") issued by Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc. The case involves 13 Offerings, which occurred between March 27, 2006 and October 26, 2006. It alleges strict liability and negligence claims brought pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act"). T he Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the issues... BNY shall provide the sworn statement as directed above by September 27, 2013. For those series for which numerosity cannot be established based solely on BNY's unique investors, by October 4, 2013, plaintiffs shall provide to BNY (i) by series, the number of unique investors needed to presumptively establish numerosity for purposes of plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and (ii) for those series where numerosity has not been satisfied based on BNY's sworn statement, the names of those unique investors already identified by other financial institutions to avoid double-counting concerns. Unless such information is rendered unnecessary in light of defenda nts' opposition to plaintiffs' class certification motion, by November 1, 2013, BNY shall provide the identity of those unique investors sufficient to establish presumptive numerosity. All documents and information produced pursuant to this Order shall be governed by the parties' Protective Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential and/or Highly Confidential Information (Doc. No. 207). SO ORDERED. (See Order). (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 9/19/2013) (ja)
|
|
Filing
248
OPINION & ORDER: This is a securities action brought on behalf of a putative class in which the plaintiffs assert claims relating to the marketing and sale of mortgage-backed security pass-through certificates issued by Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc. The case involves 13 Offerings, which occurred between March 27, 2006 and October 26, 2006. It alleges strict liability and negligence claims brought pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act"). The Court assumes the parties� 39; familiarity with the issues. Following a conference at which multiple discovery disputes were addressed, the Court directed the parties to submit letter motions related to any outstanding matters that were not resolved by the Court or agreed to b y the parties following the conference. Among other letter motions, the plaintiffs filed an application concerning the scope of defendants' electronic search protocol. The parties have reached agreement on the search terms (more than 30,000 sear ch term combinations, a list spanning over 1,600 pages), but are unable to agree on the custodians or the search period. This dispute is governed by both Rule 1 and Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure... Custodians: Plaintiffs have identi fied 80 custodians who should be subject to the search protocol... Accordingly, defendants must include Ms. Gilly as a custodian in their search protocol... Search Periods: The parties also disagree on the appropriate search periods... Shorting Acti vities: Finally, plaintiffs seek documents related to Morgan Stanley's purported shorting of its own residential mortgage- backed securities ("RMBS")... Accordingly, the Court holds that even if traders at Morgan Stanley shorted one or more of the Offerings, such conduct is not properly subject to discovery given the claims alleged in this case. (Of course, if discovery reveals that one of the custodians involved in the Offerings at issue was in contact with Morgan Stanley traders regarding the nature or adequacy of the due diligence process, then Plaintiffs are free to renew their request for discovery on this issue.) SO ORDERED. (See Order). (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 9/11/2013) (ja)
|
|
Filing
246
OPINION & ORDER re: 222 MOTION for Reconsideration of the Court's September 15, 2011 Order 129 holding that new plaintiffs claims are timely filed by Morgan Stanley, David R. Warren, Morgan Stanley & Co Incorporated, Anthony B. Tufariello, S teven S. Stern, Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, William J. Forsell. For these reasons, the defendants request for the production of documents concerning or relating to any monitoring agreement or arrangement between plaintiffs and plaintiffs counsel is DENIED in part and GRANTED in limited part. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 9/6/2013) (rsh)
|
|
Filing
176
MEMORANDUM ORDER: For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion is denied and Plaintiffs' motion is granted. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and leave to amend the complaint is granted. Plaintiffs m ust file their Fourth Amended Complaint no later than January 31, 2013. Defendants' motion for a stay is denied. This Memorandum Order resolves docket entry nos. 150 , 163 , and 170 . The Initial Pre-Trial Conference scheduled for January 16, 2013 at 3:00 p.m. is adjourned to February 25, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., and will be held in Courtroom 17C. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/11/2013) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:09-cv-02137-LTS, 1:09-cv-04414-LTS(mt)
|
|
Filing
129
OPINION AND ORDER: re: (88 in 1:09-cv-02137-LTS) MOTION to Dismiss The Second Amended Complaint. filed by Morgan Stanley, David R. Warren, Morgan Stanley & Co Incorporated, Anthony B. Tufariello, Steven S. Stern, Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, William J. Forsell. Motions terminated: (88 in 1:09-cv-02137-LTS) MOTION to Dismiss The Second Amended Complaint. filed by Morgan Stanley, David R. Warren, Morgan Stanley & Co Incorporated, Anthony B. Tufariello, Steven S. Stern, Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, William J. Forsell. Defendants' motion to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is granted with respect to Plaintiffs' failure to allege sufficiently compliance with the timing requirements of section 13 and Plaintiffs' rating-related allegations, and is denied in all other respects. Plaintiffs' request for leave to replead is granted a s to the sufficiency of their allegations with respect to compliance with the Section 13 timing requirements and as to their rating-related allegations. Any further amended complaint must be filed by September 30, 2011. Failure to file timely a furth er amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice, and without further advance noticed to Plaintiffs. This memorandum opinion and order resolves docket entry no. 88. An initial pretrial conference will be held in this matter on October 28, 2011, at 12:15 p.m. The parties' attention is directed to the Court's April 2, 2009, Initial Conference Order provisions regarding consultation and submissions in preparation for the initial pretrial conference. ( Amended Pleadings due by 9/30/2011, Initial Conference set for 10/28/2011 at 12:15 PM before Judge Laura Taylor Swain.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 9/15/2011) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:09-cv-02137-LTS, 1:09-cv-04414-LTS(djc)
|
|
Filing
81
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants' motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(I) isdenied as to Lead Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Sections 11, 12 and 15 insofar as they relate tothe 2007-11AR trust, and as to plaintif f PERS' claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 insofar asthey relate to the 2006-14SL trust, and is granted in all other respects.Defendants' motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) isgranted, with prejudice, as to Lead P laintiff WVIMB's claims relating to the 2007-11AR trust.Defendants' motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is denied, withoutprejudice to renewal, as to plaintiff PERS' claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 relatin g to the2006-14SL trust.Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend the CAC, to demonstrate PERS' standing with respect to any of the claims that have been dismissed pursuant to Rule l2(b)(I) and to augment and clarify the pleading of the claims asser ted by PERS. Any such amendment to the CAC must be filed by September 10, 2010. If no such amendment is timely filed, Defendants' motion may be reinstated, on written request, as against the remaining aspects of the existing CAC. This memorandum opinion and order resolves docket entry no. 44. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 8/17/2010) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:09-cv-02137-LTS, 1:09-cv-04414-LTS(jpo)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
