FREIDUS v. ING GROEP, N.V., 12-4514-cv. (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Number: infco20150505059
Visitors: 10
Filed: May 05, 2015
Latest Update: May 05, 2015
Summary: SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESEN
Summary: SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENT..
More
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
After our decision in Freidus v. ING Groep, N.V., 543 F. App'x 93 (2d Cir. 2013), Plaintiffs-Appellants Marshall Freidus, and Ray Ragan, and Movant-Appellant Belmont Holdings Corporation, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, vacated the decision of this Court and remanded for "further consideration in light of Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Industry Pension Fund, 575 U.S. — (2015)." See Freidus v. ING Groep, N.V., 2015 WL 1400851 (U.S. March 30, 2015).
We now VACATE that part of the judgment of the district court as pertains to the September 2007 securities offering and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. We AFFIRM the district court's judgment in all other respects.
Source: Leagle
