11 Pages


Course Number: MEND 1038, Fall 2009

College/University: Stanford

Word Count: 3153


Document Preview

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO .: 07-22601 -CIV-HULK/O'SULLIVAN SPENCER ABRAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. MICRUS ENDOVASCULAR CORP., JOHN KILCOYNE, and ROBERT STERN, Defendants. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT This is a shareholder class action suit brought against Micrus Endovascular...

Unformatted Document Excerpt
Coursehero >> California >> Stanford >> MEND 1038

Course Hero has millions of student submitted documents similar to the one
below including study guides, practice problems, reference materials, practice exams, textbook help and tutor support.

Course Hero has millions of student submitted documents similar to the one below including study guides, practice problems, reference materials, practice exams, textbook help and tutor support.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO .: 07-22601 -CIV-HULK/O'SULLIVAN SPENCER ABRAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. MICRUS ENDOVASCULAR CORP., JOHN KILCOYNE, and ROBERT STERN, Defendants. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT This is a shareholder class action suit brought against Micrus Endovascular Corporation (the &quot;Company&quot;), John Kilcoyne, and Robert Stern (collectively, &quot;Defendants&quot;), pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the &quot;Exchange Act&quot;). On October 3, 2007, the first of two class action complaints was filed in this case. The two complaints were then consolidated, and Plaintiffs Spencer Abrams, Terrill Weiss, and Oppenheimer Asset Management Services (collectively, &quot;Lead Plaintiffs&quot;) filed the operative consolidated class action complaint (the &quot;Complaint&quot;) on February 6, 2008 [D.E. #33]. On February 26, 2008, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss [D.E. #34], which is now fully briefed and ripe for determination. For the reasons discussed below, the Defendants ' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. BACKGROUND Lead Plaintiffs brought this securities class action on their behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons who purchased the Company's stock between February 12, 2007 and September 17, 2007 (the &quot;Class Period&quot;) (collectively, &quot;Plaintiffs&quot;). The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Defendants overstated the Company's future prospects and failed to <a href="/keyword/disclose-material-facts/" >disclose material facts</a> about the Company's financial condition in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, resulting in artificial inflation of the Company's stock price. The Complaint contains the following allegations in support of those claims: 1. The Company, which was formed in 1996 and became publicly-traded in 2005, develops, manufactures, and markets implantable and disposable medical devices used in the treatment of cerebral vascular diseases and intracranial aneurysms. In recent years, the Company has been engaged in an aggressive growth strategy marked by product development and geographic expansion, particularly in Asia. 2. Defendant John Kilcoyne served as the Company's President and CEO beginning in November 2004, and he held that position throughout the Class Period. 3. Defendant Robert Stern served as the Company's CFO beginning in November 2004, and he held that position throughout the Class Period. 4. The Complaint contains allegations based on information from four confidential witnesses who had been Company employees. However, one of those witnesses was no longer a Company employee at the time the Class Period began, and the other three witnesses were no longer Company employees by the end of the Class Period. 5. According to the confidential witnesses, the Company was having significant problems with the quality of its products during the Class Period. One of the witnesses, a former marketing manager, said that &quot;all of [the Company's] products were breaking.&quot; Manufacturing and quality issues delayed the unveiling of a new product, the ENZO catheter, which the Company had &quot;hyped&quot; for years. Moreover, when the ENZO catheter was demonstrated to physicians at a 2 conference in early August 2007, the feedback was &quot;not as good as expected .&quot; The Company was also having significant problems with its &quot;bread and butter&quot; products - its microcoils - which represented approximately 90% of the Company's revenues. The Company was beginning to lose its microcoil business to competitors as early as the middle of 2006. 6. In September 2005, the Company entered into an exclusive agreement with a distributor in Japan, and the Company's growth strategy became increasingly focused on entering the Asian market. However, according to one confidential witness, the products that the Company sold to the Japanese distributor &quot;filled the distributor's warehouses and never moved.&quot; One of the Company's competitors &quot;owned&quot; the Japanese market, making it difficult for the Company to gain any ground in Japan. By the end of April 2007, it was clear that the Company's distributor in Japan was not ordering additional products from the Company beyond a $1.1 million shipment which the Company had already booked as revenue. Part of the reason for the lag in sales to Japan was that the Company did not receive some desired Japanese regulatory approvals until December 2007, which was later than had been expected. 7. Plaintiffs claim that the facts stated above were known to Defendants but that Defendants nevertheless issued the following statements about the Company's business prospects: On February 12, 2007, Defendant Kilcoyne stated that the Company's third quarter Fiscal Year 20071 revenues were &quot;evidence of our ability to gain market share.&quot; Also, during an earnings conference call that same day, Defendant Stern noted that the Company had received regulatory approval for only one of their products but that &quot;Japan continues to be really strong.&quot; 1 The Company's fiscal year (&quot;FY_&quot;) runs from April 1st of each year to March 31st of the following year. On May 10, 2007, the Company issued a press release which projected that FY08 revenues would be $80 - $85 million. That press release stated, &quot;[w]e believe our growth momentum will continue in the current fiscal year with the continued launch of new products.&quot; On August 7, 2007, Defendants issued a press release stating that they &quot;expect[ed] strong revenue growth and market share gains throughout fiscal 2008, with greater acceleration in the second half of the fiscal year.&quot; Also, during an earnings conference call that same day, Defendant Kilcoyne stated that &quot;the ENZO [catheter] had been very well received.&quot; 8. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Kilcoyne and Stern knew about all the problems with the Company's products because they were very actively involved in the Company's operation. Moreover, one confidential witness stated that he had attended meetings, at which Kilcoyne and Stern were present, where these problems were discussed. 9. On September 17, 2007, the Company issued a press release which lowered its FY08 revenue projection from $80 - $85 million to $65 - $75 million. The announcement caused the price of the Company's shares to decrease by $6.20 a share, or approximately 26%, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in investor losses. Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that: (1) Plaintiffs have failed to allege specific facts which establish that any of the challenged statements were false or misleading when made, as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (the &quot;Reform Act&quot;); (2) Plaintiffs have failed to specifically allege facts showing that their confidential witnesses were in a position to know about the truth or falsity of the challenged statements; and (3) Plaintiffs have failed to allege specific facts which establish that Defendants acted with the requisite scienter. 4 In addition, Defendants argue that the challenged statements are forward-looking statements, protected by the Reform Act's &quot;safe harbor&quot; provision. STANDARD OF REVIEW In reviewing a motion to dismiss, a court must assume that the allegations in the complaint are true, and must view all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Scott v. Taylor, 405 F.3d 1251, 1253 (11th Cir. 2005). Dismissal is only appropriate &quot;when the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.&quot; Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 (11th Cir. 2002). &quot;[W]hen considering a motion to dismiss in a securities fraud case, [a court] may take judicial notice ... of relevant public documents required to be filed with the SEC, and actually filed.&quot; Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc., 187 F.3d 1271, 1278 (11th Cir.1999). ANALYSIS 1. Claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act A. Legal Standard for Liability under Section 10(b) To state a meritorious claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, a plaintiff must allege: (1) a misstatement or omission; (2) of a material fact; (3) made with scienter; (4) on which plaintiff relied; and (5) that proximately caused the plaintiff's injury. Ziemba v. Cascade Int'l, Inc., 256 F.3d 1194, 1202 (11th Cir. 2001). Furthermore, under the Reform Act, a plaintiff who alleges violations of Section 10(b) must &quot;specify each statement alleged to have been misleading, [and] the reasons why the statement is misleading .&quot; 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(b)(1). The plaintiff must specify the time place, and content of a defendant's alleged false representations. Ziemba, 256 F.3d at 1202; see also Garfield v. NDC Health Corp., 466 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir. 2006) (&quot;A sufficient level of factual support for a 10(b) claim may be found where the circumstances of the fraud are pled in detail. This 5 means the who, what, when, where, and how: the first paragraph of any newspaper story.&quot;). The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to meet these pleading requirements. B. Misstatements or Omissions of Material Facts versus &quot;Mere Puffing&quot; Plaintiffs argue that various statements made by Defendants during the Class Period were false or misleading when made. However, the statements to which Plaintiffs point represent the type of &quot;corporate optimism&quot; or &quot;mere puffing&quot; which is not covered by the Exchange Act. Such statements are not actionable under the Exchange Act because they are not capable of objective verification and because &quot;no reasonable investor would make an investment decision based on [such] statement[s].&quot; In re Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. Secs. Litig., 531 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1347 (M.D. Fla. 2007). For example, Defendant Stern's statement that &quot;Japan continues to be really strong&quot; is not a statement of verifiable fact. See In re First Union Corp. Secs. Litig., 128 F.Supp.2d 871, 891 (W.D.N.C. 2001) (finding that the statement - &quot;We are very pleased with our progress in integrating recent acquisitions and with the growth prospectus stemming from these transactions&quot; was immaterial puffery).2 Defendant Kilcoyne's statement that the ENZO catheter &quot;has been very well received&quot; also falls into the category of non-verifiable puffery. See Grossman v. Novell, Inc., 120 F.3d 1112, 1121-22 (10th Cir. 1997) ( finding that a CEO's statements that his company had experienced &quot;substantial success&quot; in integrating with a newly merged company and that the merger was moving &quot;faster than we thought it would&quot; were &quot;the sort of soft puffing statements, incapable of objective verification, that courts routinely dismiss as vague statements of corporate optimism &quot;). Finally, the FY08 revenue projection of $80 - 85 million was also not an actionable 2 Moreover, Defendants' statements in this case indicated that Japanese regulatory approval had been obtained for some but not all of its products. It is therefore unclear what false or misleading statement or omission of a material fact is alleged regarding the Company's involvement in the Japanese market. 6 statement of fact. See In re SI Corp. Secs. Litig., 173 F.Supp.2d 1334, 1350-51 (N.D.Ga. 2001) (observing that &quot;sales figures, forecasts and the like only rise to the level of materiality when they can be calculated with substantial certainty&quot;); In re Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. Secs. Litig., 531 F. Supp. 2d at 1347 (granting motion to dismiss a Section 10(b) case because the defendant's statement that &quot;continued improvement in gross profit dollars is anticipated&quot; was non-verifiable, immaterial puffery).' Plaintiffs also suggest that Defendants had an affirmative obligation to disclose problems that the Company was allegedly having with its products. However, Plaintiffs have not pointed to specific, material facts which Defendants had a duty to disclose . A duty to disclose arises where a defendant's failure to speak would render some of the defendant's statements misleading or deceptive. Ziemba, 256 F.3d at 1206. &quot;[T]he question is not simply whether the defendants omitted information potentially of interest to investors. To be actionable, the omission must render the statements actually made misleading .&quot; In re Si Corp. Secs. Litig., 173 F.Supp.2d at 1350 n.12 (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs have not pointed to, and the Court has not found, case law which suggests that there is an affirmative duty to disclose internal challenges similar to those that were allegedly occurring with the Company's products in this case. See, e.g., In re Telecom Ltd. Secs. Litig., 116 F.Supp.2d 446, 459 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (&quot;A company is generally not obligated to disclose 3 Because the Court concludes that none of the challenged statements in this case are material statements of verifiable fact, it need not address whether those statements are also protected under the Reform Act's safe harbor for&quot;forward-looking statements.&quot; Nevertheless, the Court notes that most of the challenged statements in this case were specifically identified as &quot;forward-looking statements&quot; and were &quot;accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements&quot; which warned that the results of the Company's projections could vary based on, inter alia, &quot;the Company's dependence on developing new products,&quot; &quot;challenges associated with complying with applicable ... international regulations,&quot; and &quot;the Company's ability to compete with large, well-established ... manufacturers.&quot; See, e.g., Company Press Release, dated May 10, 2007, attached as Exh. B to the Complaint; see also 15 U.S.C. 78u-5(c)(1)(A)(I) (explaining the standard for the &quot;forward-looking statement&quot; safe harbor). 7 internal problems because the securities laws do not require management to bury the shareholders in internal details and because public disclosure of internal management and engineering problems falls outside the securities laws.&quot;); In re Allscripts, Inc. Secs. Litig., 2001 WL 743411 at *6 (N.D. Ill., June 29, 2001) (holding that a duty to disclose declines in customer satisfaction with a company's products &quot;would not comport with the way the business world works&quot;) C. Scienter Even if the Court were to find that some of the challenged statements were misleading due to the Defendants' failure to <a href="/keyword/disclose-material-facts/" >disclose material facts</a> , the Complaint fails to sufficiently allege that Defendants acted with the required scienter. Scienter is defined as &quot;a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.&quot; Bryant, 187 F.3d at 1281-82. The Reform Act provides that a plaintiff must &quot;state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.&quot; 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(b)(2). The particular facts alleged may be aggregated to infer scienter . Phillips v. Scientific -Atlanta , Inc., 374 F.3d 1015, 1017 (11th Cir. 2004). &quot;The inquiry ... is whether all of the facts alleged, taken collectively, give rise to a strong inference of scienter, not whether any individual allegation, scrutinized in isolation, meets that standard .&quot; Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues &amp; Rights, Ltd., 127 S. Ct. 2499, 2509 (2007) ( emphasis in original). Moreover, &quot;[t]he inference that the defendant acted with scienter need not be irrefutable, i.e., of the `smoking gun' genre, or even the `most plausible of competing inferences.&quot;' Id. at 2510. Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether &quot; a reasonable person would deem the inference of scienter cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged.&quot; Id. Most of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding Defendants' state of mind are vague and simply conclude that Defendants knew certain information and intentionally hid that information from 8 investors. Plaintiffs rely heavily on the fact that Defendants Kilcoyne and Stern were actively involved in the operation of the Company and therefore must have known about the alleged problems. See Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants ' Motion to Dismiss at 10-11. However, &quot;it is not enough to make conclusory allegations that Defendants had access to the `true facts' in order to demonstrate scienter, particularly when the complaint fails to allege which defendant knew what, how they knew it, or when.&quot; Coca-Cola Enters., Inc. Secs. Litig., 510 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1201 (N.D.Ga. 2007). &quot;Nor does a vague assertion that a defendant must have known about the fraud by virtue of his position of authority suffice to prove a strong inference of scienter.&quot; Id. One of Plaintiffs' confidential witnesses states that he attended meetings, at which Defendants Kilcoyne and Stern w...

Textbooks related to the document above:

Find millions of documents on Course Hero - Study Guides, Lecture Notes, Reference Materials, Practice Exams and more. Course Hero has millions of course specific materials providing students with the best way to expand their education.

Below is a small sample set of documents:

Stanford - OHI - 1014
WECHSLER HARWOOD HALEBIAN &amp; FEFFER LLP Robert I. Harwood (RH-3286) Matthew M. Houston (MH-2218) Joshua D . Glatter (JG-0184) 488 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone : (212) 935-7400 Lead Counsel For Plaintiffs [Additional Counsel Li
Stanford - AGA - 1018
Case 4:01-cv-01688-CWDocument 209Filed 03/15/2006Page 1 of 251 LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN &amp; ROBBINS LLP 2 JEFFREY W. LAWRENCE (166806) CHRISTOPHER P. SEEFER (201197) 3 SHIRLEY H. HUANG (206854) 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 4 San Franc
Stanford - C - 000821
XX International Linac Conference, Monterey, CaliforniaCRITICAL ANALYSIS OF INDUSTRIAL ELECTRON LINACSS. Korenev, STERIS CORPORATION, STERIS Isomedix Services, 2500 Commerce Drive, Libertyville, IL 60048, USAAbstract The electron Linacs found wi
N.C. State - ARE - 309
Unit 14 Toxic Substance ControlToxic Substance Control Act &amp; Other RegulationTed FeitshansARE 309014-1Fragmented Regulation Numerous statutes Many gaps Scientific uncertaintyTed FeitshansARE 309014-2Risk Assessment Hazard iden
Maple Springs - M - 1014
Stanford - C - 070910
MENU 2007 11th International Conference on Meson-Nucleon Physics and the Structure of the Nucleon September10-14, 2007 IKP, Forschungzentrum Jlich, GermanyEFFECTIVE FIELD THEORY FRAMEWORK FOR Kd SCATTERINGB. Borasoy, U.-G. Meiner, R. Niler, A. Rus
N.C. State - MA - 302
Multiple Choice Questions 1-10 for Lesson 11. A discrete model for Newton's Law of Cooling is (a). yk+1 yk = dt*c*(ysur yk) (b). yk+1 yk = dt*c*ysur yk (c). y'(t) = c(ysur y(t) (d). y'(t) = c*ysur y(t) (e). yk+1 y = c(ysur y(t) A continuous mod
Maple Springs - CSE - 2021
York University Dept. of Computer Science COSC 2021.01: Computer OrganizationSample Midterm Exam.Instructions:This is a closed book, 2-hour exam. You may use a calculator and one 8.5x11 crib sheet. You can write in pen or pencil. Do not use any
Allan Hancock College - TEST - 010620
CCD17 tests 20-June-2001AimTo commission CICADA V3 on 74inch telescope using SDSUI controller.SetupItem Controller CCD Dewar Focal Plane Cicada Amplifier Setup Initial Operating Temperature Test Instrument SDSUI1 CCD17 SITe2048x4096 D14 FP14 V1.
N.C. State - ZO - 250
How to make a graph using Excel. (authored by Megan Lord) 1. Type the data into columns (these are sample data - Don't use it!). I realize that I did the non-dominant higher than the dominant - that was an accident.Dominant Arm EMG (mV) 2 3 4 4 5 Fo
N.C. State - AG - 439
Stanford - EE - 359
Stanford - ACRT - 1023
Stanford - CHEZ - 1023
N.C. State - CSC - 774
Client PuzzlesA Cryptographic Defense Against Connection Depletion AttacksMost of slides come from Ari Juels and John Brainard RSA LaboratoriesThe ProblemHow to take down a restaurantRestauranteurSaboteur1Table for four at 8 oclock. Nam
Montana - BCHM - 444
8338Biochemistry 1988, 27, 8338-8343Function of Arginine- 166 in the Active Site of Escherichia coli Alkaline PhosphatasetAntigoni Chaidaroglou, Donna J. Brezinski, Steven A. Middleton, and Evan R. Kantrowitz* Department of Chemistry, Boston Col
Montana - BIO - 102
CHAPTER 27 PROKARYOTES AND THE ORIGINS OF METABOLIC DIVERSITY Section E: The Ecological Impact of Prokaryotes1. Prokaryotes are indispensable links in the recycling of chemical elements in ecosystems 2. Many prokaryotes are symbiotic 3. Pathogenic p
Montana - BIO - 102
I. Proteins Table 5.1 Review Functions Cell Structure: cytoskeleton and extracellular matrix Transport: movement of molecules Signalling: hormones, neurotransmitters, messengers Receptors: signalling molecules act on these Contractile: cell mov
Montana - BIO - 102
In the thylakoid, Chlorophyll a, the dominant pigment, absorbs best in the red and blue wavelengths, and least in the green. Fig. 10.8aChlorophyll b PSI 700 Chlorophyll a PSII 680Noncyclic electron flow Electron donor &gt; transfer e- &gt; electron ac
Montana - CS - 518
/ipv4/net/ip_output.c -IP Build and Send: -IP HEADER 380 /* OK, we now build IP header. */ 381 iph = (struct iphdr *) skb_push(skb, sizeof(struct iphdr) + (opt ? opt-&gt;optlen : 0); 382 *(_u16 *)iph) = htons(4 &lt; 12) | (5 &lt; 8) | (sk-&gt;protinfo.af_inet.to
N.C. State - P - 287
N.C. State - P - 190
N.C. State - P - 151
N.C. State - P - 151
N.C. State - CSC - 791
MULTILAYER SURVIVABILITYKeerthana Boloor Raghu Kalyan Anna1AGENDAMotivation Multilayer survivability models Common pool Survivability Dynamic multilayer resilience schemes ReferencesMOTIVATIONIntegrated solution for survivabilityAvoiding
Stanford - BRCD - 1034
Case 3:07-cv-05950-CDocument 28Filed 03/06/2008Page 1 of 101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 it CG v oUIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28HAI-NING HUANG, W
N.C. State - CSC - 570
Homework 5 Solution Guidelines ECE/CSC 570-001, Fall 20071. (Tanenbaum, 5.3) Datagram subnets route each packet as a separate unit, independent of all others. Virtual-circuit subnets do not have to do this, since each data packet follows a predeter
N.C. State - CSC - 570
Homework 2 Solution Guidelines ECE/CSC 570-001, Fall 20071. In a block coding scheme, an error control code of 3 bits is appended to every block of 5 bits, resulting in 8 bit codewords. The rule for generating the ECC bits is as follows: r2 is gene
N.C. State - CSC - 570
Data Link Control - Medium Access ControlRudra DuttaECE/CSC 570 - Fall 2007, Section 001Positioning Local Area NetworksSmall size; room, floor, building Small number of computers, dozens, hundreds Manydifferent approaches, standards E
Allan Hancock College - ECON - 1102
Econ 1102: Week 13, Lecture 2RECAP Examined the effects of Domestic Demand Shocks in the Open Economy context. Nominal Money Supply Shock: In long-run same effect as in closed economy - no REAL effects all money prices rise in same proportion as M
N.C. State - MA - 242
MA 242 January 30, 1997 Show All WorkTest # 1Name: SS #: Row #:1. (10 pts) Find the equation of the plane that passes through the three points (0, 3, 0), (0, 2, 1), and (3, 0, 4). x 3y + 9 3z = 0 2. (10 pts) Find an equation for the plane co
N.C. State - MA - 242
MA 242 May 5, 1997 Show All WorkFinal ExamName: SS #: Seat #:1. (10 pts) Find an equation of the plane that contains the points (1, 0, -1) and (2, 1, 3) and is orthogonal to 2x - y + 3z = 6. 7x + 5y - 3z = 10 2. (10 pts) Find parametric equatio
N.C. State - MA - 583
Chapter 1Introduction1.1 PreliminariesIn this note we concern ourselves with the numerical methods only for the first order ordinary differential (ODE) system in the normal form dy = f (x, y) (1.1) dx where x R, y Rn and f : R Rn - Rn . This
N.C. State - MA - 583
Chapter 5Sti Systems5.1 Understanding of Sti SystemsSti ordinary dierential systems arise frequently in the elds of chemical kinetics, nuclear reactors, control theory and electrical circuit theory. Generally speaking, whenever there involves a
N.C. State - MA - 530
Chapter 6System of Nonlinear EquationsFinding the zeros of a given function f , i.e., nding an argument x for which f (x) = 0 (6.1)where f : Rn Rn , is a classical problem arising from many areas of applications. Except in linear problems, root
N.C. State - ST - 361
Ch5.4 + Ch1.3 Random Variable and Its Probability Distribution: Part II: Continuous Random Variable-Topics: Probability Distribution of a continuous random variable (5.4, 1.3) Mean and Variance of a continuous random variable (5.4, 2.1, 2.2) - (r.v.
Stanford - MRK - 1039
May-12-08(1696 2:09reV-(b604WC-MFDocument 19T OW1U510912008 T-8Pagb042( 721 F-299AW James E. Cocchi Lindsey H. Taylor CARELLA, BYRNE, BAIN, GILFILLAN, CECCHI, STEWART &amp; OLSTEIN 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, New Jersey 07068 (973) 994-1700 De
Stanford - SWTX - 1015
Ir.L1L.23456.7 8910x1411115L1 6171819202122232425262728STO/Z00p JOP9P L69 STP0 s6C:60OO/LO/BO1L.234 5,Company's publicly reported revenues and earnings...;,.,. I6782.
Stanford - ADPI - 1039
Case 1:08-cv-10230-RGSDocument 1Filed 02/12/2008Page 1 of 27UNITED STATES DISTRICT ( )U1 F, DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTSFREDERICK J. JOHNSTON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,V.No.CLASS ACTION COMPLAI
Stanford - BAC - 1011
Stanford - PCR - 1040
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTSWILLIAM P. ISHAM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,No. l :08-cv - l 1449-NMGCLASS ACTIONPlaintiff,vs. PERINI CORP., et al., Defendants. MARION ROLLMAN, Individua
Stanford - ABSI - 1009
US District Court Civil Docket as of 07/03/2000 Retrieved from the court on Thursday, June 20, 2005U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland)CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:96-cv-00109-SOHawk v. ABS Industries, Inc., et al Assigned to:
Stanford - CSRV - 1002
Stanford - ESPI - 1017
US District Court Civil Docket as of 01/29/2001 Retrieved from the court on Wednesday, July 12, 2006U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Baltimore)CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:00-cv-01140-AHKranes v. Pompliano, et al Assigned to: Senior Judge
Stanford - JDSU - 1023
4:02-cv-01486-CWDocument 1417Filed 09/10/2007Page 1 of 91 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9JAMES P . BENNETT (BAR NO. 65179) JORDAN ETH (BAR NO . 121617) TERRI GARLAND (BAR NO. 169563) PHILIP T . BESIROF (BAR NO . 185053) MORRISON &amp; FOERSTER LLP 425 Market S
Stanford - CLX - 1010
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10MELVIN R. GOLDMAN (State Bar No. 34097) JORDAN ETH (State Bar No. 121617) DOROTHY FERNANDEZ (State Bar No. 184266) MIA A. MAZZA (State Bar No. 184158) MORRISON &amp; FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-248
Stanford - JDSU - 1023
Case 4:02-cv-01486-CWDocument 1363-8Filed 08/17/2007Page 1 of 10. . .^tl Mario Leduc 03/27/2000 08.07 AMDavid Lightfoot/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc Chris Doylend/HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL Inc, Thomas Pitre'HQ/JDS FITEL Inc@JDS FITEL In
Stanford - CBF - 1038
US District Court Civil Docket as of 12/29/2008 Retrieved from the court on Monday, January 05, 2009U.S. District Court District of Connecticut (New Haven) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:07-cv-01599-SRUHutchison v. Cbre Rlty Finance Inc et alDate Fil
Stanford - FLEX - 1024
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18MELVIN R. GOLDMAN (State Bar No. 34097) JORDAN ETH (State Bar No. 121617) DOROTHY L. FERNANDEZ (State Bar No. 184266) ERIC M. BROOKS (State Bar No. 209153) MORRISON &amp; FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Fr
Montana - NCR - 101
Montana - PHYSICS - 213
Lecture 6: 1/25/06 Homework HW#1 due before class. HW#2 due next Wednesday before class. Problem at end of lecture. MP#6 is due Friday at 1pm. No new reading (Should be through 20.7 by now) Practice problems from Serway (Not to be turned in!) Probl
Montana - PHYSICS - 213
Homework HW#9 is on web, due Friday. HW#10 due next Wednesday Mastering Physics READ THE TEXT BETWEEN PROBLEMS! THEY ARE HINTS! MP#23 is Thursday at 5pm. MP#24 is due Monday at 1pm. Read 42.1-42.3 Practice problems from Serway (Not to be turned i
Montana - PHYSICS - 361
LM723/LM723C Voltage RegulatorJune 1999LM723/LM723C Voltage RegulatorGeneral DescriptionThe LM723/LM723C is a voltage regulator designed primarily for series regulator applications. By itself, it will supply output currents up to 150 mA; but ex
Montana - ENTO - 510
Quotation of the DayTheres nothing constant in the universe, All ebb and flow, and every shape thats born Bears in its womb the seeds of change. - Ovid, Metamorphoses, XVTemperatureI. Introduction Size Surface area to mass ratio Relative impo
Montana - LRES - 555
Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the northern Gulf of MexicoDRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT1AcknowledgmentsHundreds of scientists, from a wide array of different fields, contributed over the years to the extensive knowledge base on which this asse
Montana - LRES - 555
Page 1 of 4Soil and Aquatic ChemistryProfessor: Dr. Bill InskeepLRES 555Spring 2007Office Hours:11:00 a.m. - 12 noon TuTh and by appointment, 805 LJH Communication: ph 994-5077, binskeep@montana.eduText:Sparks, D.L. 2003. Environmental S
Montana - LRES - 555
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 4174-4180Complexation of Mercury(II) in Soil Organic Matter: EXAFS Evidence for Linear Two-Coordination with Reduced Sulfur GroupsU L F S K Y L L B E R G , * , P A U L R . B L O O M , JIN QIAN, CHUNG-MIN LIN, AND
N.C. State - CH - 331
North Carolina State University Homework #7 Name _ Section _ Physical Chemistry 331 Due: November 7, 2003 1. A pharmaceutical company is investigating a new lead for a drug known as Cureall. The drug binds to the active site of enzyme Blahase, which
N.C. State - SERVICE - 004
Aquatic insect ecophysiological traits reveal phylogenetically based differences in dissolved cadmium susceptibilityDavid B. Buchwalter*, Daniel J. Cain, Caitrin A. Martin*, Lingtian Xie*, Samuel N. Luoma, and Theodore Garland, Jr.*Department of En
N.C. State - P - 190
Stanford - C - 940808
RECENT RESULTS FROM TRISTANSteve Schnetzer Rutgers University Piscataway, New Jersey 08855-0849, U.S.A. Representing the TRISTAN CollaborationsABSTRACTI report here on recent results from the three major TRISTAN experiments: VENUS, TOPAZ, and AMY