District Court, S.D. New York — appointed by Richard Nixon
In Re Pfizer Inc. Derivative Securities Litigation
District Court, S.D. New York · 2007-07-17 · cited 5×
This case is a shareholder derivative suit brought by Pfizer investors against the company's current and former directors and officers. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants knew of or should have known about cardiovascular risks tied to Celebrex and Bextra from clinical studies, concealed that information, and continued aggressive marketing of the drugs, which generated billions in sales before the FDA imposed black-box warnings and Pfizer suspended Bextra sales. No pre-suit demand was made on the board; instead, plaintiffs pleaded that demand was futile because a majority of directors lacked independence or were interested due to alleged insider trading, long-term ties, committee roles, stock holdings, and failure to act on known risks. Applying Delaware law under Rule 23.1, the court assessed whether the particularized allegations created a reasonable doubt that the board could have exercised independent and disinterested judgment on the claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint did not meet the threshold for excusing demand.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Feder Ex Rel. IVAX Corp. v. Frost
District Court, S.D. New York · 2007-02-15 · cited 1×
This case involves a shareholder derivative action under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the CEO and major shareholder of IVAX Corp. and his partnership, seeking to recover alleged short-swing profits from purchases of IVAX stock by the defendants and sales of IVAX stock by another company, NAVI, in which the defendants held a stake. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that they were not liable because they qualified for a safe harbor exception under SEC rules, as they were not controlling shareholders of NAVI and did not exercise investment control over NAVI's portfolio. The reasoning focused on the strict liability provisions of Section 16(b) for beneficial owners but applied the exemption where the defendants lacked the requisite control or pecuniary interest in NAVI's transactions.
business & regulatory
United States v. Henderson
District Court, S.D. New York · 2006-11-02 · cited 1×
In this capital case involving triple murder charges arising from an alleged drug racketeering robbery by a gang called Murder Unit, defendant Henderson invoked 18 U.S.C. § 3432 to obtain a list of government witnesses that included their addresses. The government supplied the names of 66 potential witnesses but withheld addresses for 27 of them, arguing that disclosure would endanger their safety. After a hearing and review of the indictment and government proffers describing the gang's history of violence, ongoing presence of members in the community, and specific instances of witness intimidation, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that providing the addresses may jeopardize life or safety and therefore permitted the government to withhold them.
criminal lawprocedure
United States v. Becton
District Court, S.D. New York · 2006-10-18
In United States v. Becton, a federal capital case charging triple homicide and approaching trial, the defendant sought broad production of the father's entire Social Security and Veterans Affairs files to support claims that the mother had misused benefits intended for the defendant as a child, a supplemental subpoena to Bronx Supreme Court, and authorization to hire a videographer to record the testimony of the defendant's children without requiring their in-court appearance. The court denied the expansive agency record requests, finding they would be burdensome and offered no evidentiary support for the misuse allegations since interviewed witnesses and the mother herself could address the issue, but exercised discretion to order the agencies to provide a schedule of benefits paid. The supplemental subpoena was granted, while the videographer request was approved only on condition that the government be permitted to attend and cross-examine the children, consistent with precedent emphasizing the prosecution's right to confrontation for reliability. The court reiterated that the children were available to testify and that videotaped testimony without cross-examination was disfavored.
criminal lawprocedure
United States v. Henderson
District Court, S.D. New York · 2006-10-11
In this capital case, defendants Becton and Henderson, charged with racketeering, robbery, triple homicide, and related crimes, moved to declare the Federal Death Penalty Act unconstitutional, strike mental intent and aggravating factors from the government's death penalty notices, require grand jury review of non-statutory factors, and obtain other procedural relief. The court denied the motions in part and granted them in part, rejecting challenges to the FDPA's constitutionality, its "sufficiently outweigh" standard, separation of powers issues, ex post facto concerns, and various statutory and non-statutory aggravating factors. It reasoned that Supreme Court precedent upholds the death penalty, other courts have uniformly rejected similar arguments, non-statutory factors do not require grand jury indictment as they affect only sentencing selection, and mental intent factors all require proof of intent without improper duplication. The court noted that sufficiency challenges to factors and some notice issues would be addressed later in the proceedings.
criminal law
United States v. Henderson
District Court, S.D. New York · 2006-10-10
This case involves a joint motion by two defendants in a federal capital case seeking various procedures for jury selection, including a questionnaire, attorney-led voir dire, punishment-related questioning, sequestered individual voir dire, the struck jury method, additional peremptory challenges, and bifurcation of the penalty phase. The court granted the request for individually sequestered voir dire but denied the others, following Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24 for court-conducted questioning and the standard allocation of 20 peremptory challenges per side. It rejected punishment-specific voir dire as not required by Supreme Court precedent like Morgan v. Illinois, which focuses on impartiality regarding the death penalty rather than case-specific views, and declined to depart from established rules on jury methods and challenges. The core reasoning relied on applicable federal rules, Supreme Court standards for capital jury impartiality, and circuit precedent indicating that certain expanded questioning or procedures are neither mandated nor preferable.
criminal lawprocedure