Amended Complaint 'Adds Nothing' to Insider Trading Case vs. Silver Lake: Defendants
Though lead plaintiff Walleye Group alleged in its second amended complaint (SAC) that the securities litigation it brought involving Intelsat stock was “the quintessential insider trading case” (see 2211290056), the SAC “adds nothing” about the Silver Lake defendants, “literally, not…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
a word,” said the defendants’ motion to dismiss Thursday (docket 4:20-cv-02341) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in Oakland. Though the court previously dismissed Walleye’s claims against the Silver Lake defendants for three independent reasons, but provided leave to amend, the SAC gave the court “no reason to revisit its prior ruling,” said the defendants. “The SAC should be dismissed with prejudice.” U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White told Walleye in his Sept. 29 that if it chose to amend, it needed to address its theory of how four of the six Silver Lake defendants who never held shares of Intelsat stocks could be held liable for insider trading, said the defendants. Walleye’s response to that directive “is short on words but long on meaning,” they said. Walleye added “not one word to any of its allegations regarding Silver Lake,” declining the opportunity to address any of the facts and documents already highlighted by the court, they said. Walleye “did not, and apparently could not, add a single word that might address why Silver Lake belongs in this case at all,” they said.