Yes they are two "separate actions" but I'm not sure that dropping our motion for sanctions would guarantee Rosen a walk. The way I read our complaint PSLRA "requires" the judge to make a determination and levy sanctions if appropriate. In other words the judge had an affirmative duty to do these things regardless of whether Sullivan had made that motion. Now do I think that Judge Failla would have done so prior to our motion? No I do not. Apparently all (or most?) judges are ignoring the very specific requirements of PSLRA. But now that this motion has brought this to Judge Faiila's attention in a very clear, concise, and detailed manner, I hope that she does her duty.
From our sanction motion...
From our sanction motion...
Quote:First, through the sanctions provision, Congress’s intent was “to impose upon courts the affirmative duty to scrutinize filings closely and to sanction attorneys or parties whenever their conduct violates Rule 11(b).” Committee PSLRA Statement, at 40; see also Gurary, 303 F.3d at 223 (quoting same). Consequently, unlike Rule 11, the sanctions provision “requires district courts, at the conclusion of private actions arising under federal securities laws, to make Rule 11 findings as to each party and each attorney, ... and if a Rule 11 violation is found, the statute requires courts to impose sanctions.” ATSI Commc’ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 579 F.3d 143, 152 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original) (“ATSI”).
Quote:Yes, it is clear they are separate actions.... but, the question was raised as to whether or not the move for sanctions against Rosen will be dropped. I'd like to think no, but, don't really know until we see what the company says/does. - KarinCA
